JAMES D. WILLIAMS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that an allegation of counsel not interviewing the accused prior to trial, standing alone, does not constitute grounds for relief under CrRP 1.850.
Appellant sought relief under CrRP 1.850, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel because his appointed counsel did not interview him before trial.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse 28 U.S.C. § 2255 cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant seeks review of an order denying him relief pursuant to CrRP 1.850, 33 F.S.A. His petition alleged that he was hot effectively represented by counsel at trial by stating: “[T]hat defense counsel was inadequate and did not represent the defendant’s best interests.” The basis of this contention rests on the fact that the record does not disclose any interview between appellant’s appointed counsel and the appellant prior to the trial.
However, the record does show that the appellant had been represented by private counsel prior to the trial stage; that the public defender was ready to proceed with the trial when the case was called, and never made a motion to continue in order to properly prepare a defense; and that the public defender filed a motion to suppress evidence prior to the trial. All of these factors belie any legal basis for asserting that representation was inadequate. Goforth v. United States, 314 F.2d 868 (10th Cir. 1963).
In Simpson v. State, Fla.App. 1964, 164 So.2d 224, we adopted the federal rationale which holds that the competence of counsel can not bfe determined by the amount of time he is shown to have spent *618with the accused. An allegation that counsel did not interview the accused prior to trial, standing alone, does not constitute grounds upon which relief pursuant to CrRP 1.850 can be granted. See Conyers v. State, Fla.App.1968, 215 So.2d 616 (Third District Court of Appeal). See also State v. Barton, Fla.1967, 194 So.2d 241, which sets forth the reasoning of this rule as developed in a series of federal cases construing 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255, which is the federal counterpart of CrRP 1.850.
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court was correct in denying the appellant an evidentiary hearing on his CrRP 1.850 petition. Therefore, the ordf appealed from is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Caplinger v. State, 271 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)…164 So. 2d 224. A trial will not be viewed as a sham or mockery on the basis of the time the public defender spent with defendant, State v. Barton, Fla.1967, 194 So. 2d 241; Byrd v. State, Fla.App.1971, 243 So. 2d 1; Williams v. State, Fla.App.1968, 215 So. 2d 617, nor will counsel be viewed as incompetent because he exercised his personal judgment and did not call a certain witness on behalf of the defense. Fuller v. Wainwright, Fla. 1970, 238 So. 2d 65; Thomas v. State, Fla.App.1966, 190 So. 2d 361. Accordi…
-
Artis Scarborough v. State, 278 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)…s motions and attending hearings thereon. The allegations that defense counsel visited appellant only twice in jail does not in itself establish incompetent representation; State v. Barton, Fla.1967, 194 So. 2d 241; Williams v. State, Fla.App.1968, 215 So. 2d 617; Fuller v. Wainwright, Fla. 1970, 238 So. 2d 65. For his contention that he was psychologically coerced by his attorney to enter his plea of guilty, appellant cites Brumley v. State, Fla.App., 224 So. 2d 447; Davis v. State, Fla.App., 242 So. 2d 75…
-
Johnson v. State, 236 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)…citing the uniform holding of the Federal Courts in cases brought under § 2255, Title 28, U. S.C.A., the counterpart of CrPR 1.850. The opinion in Barton has been uniformly followed by the District Courts of Appeal. Williams v. State, Fla.App.1968, 215 So. 2d 617; Simpson v. State, Fla.App.1964, 164 So. 2d 224; Wooten v. State, Fla.App.1964, 163 So. 2d 305; Kirkland v. State, Fla.App.1964, 165 So. 2d 774; Gillen v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So. 2d 1; Sam v. State, Fla.App.1964, 167 So. 2d 258. The foregoing…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Simpson v. State, 164 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- State v. Barton, 194 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 1967)
- Goforth v. United States, 314 F.2d 868 (10th Cir. 1963)
- Conyers v. State, 215 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)