CURLEY FAULKNER, 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.
Curley Faulkner appeals a denial of his post-conviction relief petition under Florida Criminal Procedure Rule 1.850 following his conviction for larceny of an automobile. The appellate court affirms the denial, finding that all grounds previously raised and disposed of on direct appeal lack merit upon reexamination.
The post-conviction motion was properly denied. All grounds raised in the motion had previously been considered and rejected on direct appeal, and upon review of the record and transcript, no errors were found by the trial court.
“All the grounds of the post-conviction motion were urged before this Court upon the prior appeal and disposed of by this Court's opinion therein.”
Establishes that the issues raised in the post-conviction motion were not new but had already been considered and rejected on direct appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFaulkner pleaded guilty on December 21, 1967, to larceny of an automobile with court-appointed counsel. He was sentenced the same day. He appealed dir…
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 Collateral Attack On Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant Curley Faulkner appeals to this Court an order entered by the Lake County Circuit Court denying, without evi-dentiary hearing, his petition for relief under CrPR 1.850, 33 F.S.A.
On December 21, 1967, Faulkner, with the assistance of Court-appointed counsel, pleaded guilty to an information charging him with larceny of an automobile, and on the same date he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment. Faulkner appealed directly to this Court from said judgment and sentence, resulting in an affirmance by this Court on September 25, 1968, 214 So.2d 40, disposing of the merits of the case adverse to Faulkner.
Thereafter, on March 20, 1968, Faulkner filed his Motion under CrPR 1.850 to vacate collaterally the sentence aforesaid, which Motion on November 13, 1969 was denied. It is from this latter order that the instant appeal was taken by Faulkner, and the local Public Defender, by appointment of the trial Court, represented Faulkner here. All the grounds of the post-conviction motion were urged before this Court upon the prior appeal and disposed of by this Court’s opinion therein. With commendable candor, Faulkner’s present counsel states in his brief that he “has made a thorough and sincere examination of the record and the Transcript of Testimony and has examined his own records and is unable in good conscience to point out to this Court any errors made by the Trial Court.” The Attorney General understandably finds no quarrel with such observation. Neither do we, after a searching examination of the Transcript of Record and Briefs filed here. The order appealed from is therefore—
Affirmed.
HOBSON, C. J., and MANN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McCRAE v. State, 437 So. 2d 1388 (Fla. 1983)…Matters which were raised on appeal and decided adversely to the mov-ant are not cognizable by motion under Rule 3.850. E.g., Christopher v. State, 416 So. 2d 450 (Fla.1982); Dismuke v. State, 388 So. 2d 1324 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Faulkner v. State, 226 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969). Furthermore, any matters which could have been presented on appeal are similarly held to be foreclosed from consideration by motion under the Rule. E.g., Demps v. State, 416 So. 2d 808 (Fla.1982); State v. Jackson, 414 So. 2d 281…
-
Tafero v. State, 242 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)…t that his constitutional rights were violated at the police line-up where he was not afforded counsel. This point was discussed in the opinion which denied the first appeal. There should be an end to litigation. See Faulkner v. State, Fla.App.1969, 226 So. 2d 441. Appellant’s next point argues that the information was defective in that it was improperly sworn to. The trial court cited Champlin v. State, Fla.App.1960, 122 So. 2d 412 in denying the motion. See also Bretti v. State, Fla.App.1970, 239 So. 2d 52…
Authorities Cited
- Curley Faulkner v. State, 214 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)