K. C. SINCLAIR
v.
STATE
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 Florida Supreme Court affirmed a conviction for breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny, holding that the defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea, based on claims of fear and duress, was properly denied. The court found the appeal controlled by a prior, similar case decided the same day.
No, the trial court did not err in denying the motion to withdraw the guilty plea. The principles of law governing such motions, as established in a prior case, were correctly applied.
“We have considered the merits of each assignment of error on the appeal and find that the same are controlled by the case of Sinclair v. State of Florida, a case this day decided by this Court.”
This quote establishes that the current appeal is governed by a prior ruling from the same court on the same day.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff in error was charged with breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny. He pleaded guilty on June 22, 1937, and was sentenc…
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 Breaking And Entering With Intent To Commit Grand Larceny cases and more on FLexlaw
—Plaintiff in error was informed against for breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny. The information was filed in open court on June 22, 1937, and upon arraignment thereto the plaintiff in error on the same date, viz., June 22, 1937, entered a plea of. guilty. He was by the Judge of the Criminal Court of *419Record in and for Dade County, Florida, on June 24, 1937, sentenced to the State Penitentiary for a period of five years.
On June 25, 1937, defendant filed through counsel a motion to withdraw the plea of guilty and substitute therefor a plea of not guilty. The motion was supported by an affidavit of plaintiff in error charging fear and duress in entering the plea of guilty.
We have considered the merits of each assignment of error on the appeal and find that the same are controlled by the case of Sinclair v. State of Florida, a case this day decided by this Court. The same principles of law obtain and the only difference being that he entered the dwelling house of one George N. Davis as charged in the information in the case at bar, while the other information charges that the defendant entered the dwelling of B. F. Wilson.
The judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed.
Ellis, C. J., and Whitfield, J., concur.
Brown, J., dissents.
Buford, J., not participating.