WALTER M. KEEHN, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
Appellant Keehn pleaded guilty to assault with intent to commit escape and attempt to escape from county jail, receiving concurrent six-month to five-year sentences. He appealed, challenging the trial court's denial of his motion to vacate the judgment, arguing that joint representation by a public defender and insufficient preparation time violated his rights.
The trial court did not err. Joint representation of multiple defendants by a single public defender is not per se error, and the time allowed for counsel preparation was adequate given the simplicity of the charges of assault with intent to commit escape and attempt to escape.
“The question regarding the trial of one defendant with one or more codefendants jointly represented by a public defender has been answered contrary to appellant's position.”
Establishes that joint representation is not per se error under controlling Florida precedent
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant and two codefendants were awaiting transfer to Florida State Prison when they attempted to escape from county jail. All three were jointly r…
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 Attempted Escape cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant was informed against on the charge of assault with intent to commit escape and attempt to escape from county jail. He was arraigned on both charges and entered a plea of guilty to each charge. On September 24,1964, appellant was sentenced on each of the charges to a term of six months to five years to run concurrently. Subsequently, appellant in proper person filed a motion to vacate and set aside judgment and sentence pursuant to CrPR 1.850, 33 F.S.A. This motion was denied without a hearing.
In the motion appellant alleged that he and two codefendants were awaiting transfer to Florida State Prison to commence serving sentences for which they had been convicted and which were unrelated to each other. After the attempt to escape the appellant and the two codefendants were jointly represented by the public defender’s office. Said public defender was appointed immediately prior to the time of arraignment and was only allowed approximately ten minutes to talk with the appellant and his codefendants.
In his appeal appellant urges that it was error for him to be tried with one or more codefendants having the same counsel, and that the trial judge erred in denying his motion to vacate and set aside sentence without an adversary hearing. The question regarding the trial of one defendant with one or more codefendants jointly represented by a public defender has been answered contrary to appellant’s position. Belton v. State, Fla.1968, 217 So.2d 97; State v. Youngblood, Fla.1968, 217 So.2d 98. See Baker v. State, Fla.1967, 202 So.2d 563 and Dunbar v. State, Fla.App.1968, 214 So.2d 52.
The other contention raised by appellant regarding the time lapse between appointment of counsel and the trial is without merit since the time allowed before trial was adequate to cover the simple charges to be tried. Assault with intent to commit escape and attempt to escape are not complicated charges. In view of the simplicity of the charges and the facts of record the time allowed was sufficient. See State v. Barton, Fla.1967, 194 So.2d 241.
Appellant having failed to show error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
PIERCE and MANN, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Conner v. State, 229 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)…f itself sufficient to sustain a bare allegation that counsel was not appointed in time to properly represent the defendant. See State v. Barton, Fla.1967, 194 So. 2d 241; Brown v. State, Fla.App. 1966, 191 So. 2d 612; Keehn v. State, Fla.App. 1969, 221 So. 2d 26. For the foregoing reasons the order denying relief sought under CrPR 1.850 is hereby affirmed. HOBSON, C. J., and LILES and McNULTY, JJ., concur.…
-
Keehn v. State, 225 So. 2d 919 (Fla. 1969)…. Certiorari denied without opinion. 221 So. 2d 26.…
Authorities Cited
- Belton v. State, 217 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1968)
- State v. Youngblood, 217 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 1968)
- Baker v. State, 202 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 1967)
- State v. Barton, 194 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 1967)
- Dunbar v. State, 214 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)