ARTHUR R. CONNER, 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.
This case involves an appeal from an order denying a motion to vacate a judgment and sentence. The appellant argued that his appointed counsel did not have sufficient time to prepare for trial. The court affirmed the denial, holding that the time between appointment and trial is not, by itself, enough to prove inadequate representation.
No, the time elapsed between the appointment of counsel and the trial is not, in and of itself, sufficient to sustain a claim that counsel was not appointed in time to properly represent the defendant.
“The amount of time that elapsed between appointment and trial is not in and of itself sufficient to sustain a bare allegation that counsel was not appointed in time to properly represent the defendant.”
This quote establishes the core legal principle that mere passage of time is insufficient to prove inadequate counsel.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant, Arthur R. Conner, filed a motion to vacate his judgment and sentence, arguing that his appointed counsel lacked sufficient time to prep…
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.
This is an appeal from an order denying appellant relief under CrPR 1.850, 33 F.S.A. motion to vacate and set aside the judgment and sentence. The Assistant Public Defender was appointed to represent appellant immediately prior to trial. Appellant in his motion states that counsel did not have sufficient time to properly prepare for trial.
The amount of time that elapsed between appointment and trial is not in and of 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fuller v. Wainwright, 238 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 1970)…the right of effective assistance of counsel and alleges that he was visited only twice by his lawyer prior to trial. This does not in itself establish incompetent representation. Brown v. State, 191 So. 2d 612 (Fla.App.3rd, 1966); Conner v. State, 229 So. 2d 17 (Fla.App.2d, 1969). Furthermore, his complaint that his court-appointed counsel failed to subpoena witnesses for his defense is without merit. Failure of counsel to call witnesses on behalf of the defense is a matter of personal judgment exercised b…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Barton, 194 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 1967)
- Brown v. State, 191 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Keehn v. State, 221 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)