SAMUEL JUNIOR THOMAS, 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.
Samuel Junior Thomas appeals the trial court's summary denial of his fourth post-conviction relief motion based on alleged inadequate counsel at his guilty plea. The court affirms the denial, holding that Florida's procedural rule bars successive motions raising similar grounds when the prisoner has already received prior appellate review.
The court affirms the denial of Thomas's fourth motion to vacate, holding that the trial court is not required to entertain successive motions for similar relief on behalf of the same prisoner under CrPR 1.850.
[1] A court is not required to entertain a second or successive motion for post-conviction relief based on the same grounds as a prior motion.
[2] Post-conviction relief rules govern the disposition of successive motions filed by the same prisoner.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the sentencing Court shall not be required to entertain a second or successive motion for similar relief on behalf of the same prisoner”
The procedural rule at issue that governs when courts must consider post-conviction relief motions, establishing the basis for denying successive motions on similar grounds.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThomas was charged with robbery along with three codefendants in 1964. He was arraigned and pleaded guilty on October 12, 1964, and was sentenced to s…
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 Crpr 1.850 cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant Samuel Junior Thomas appeals to this Court from an order summarily denying his petition for post-conviction relief filed in the lower Court under CrPR 1.850, 33 F.S.A.
On September 25,1964, Thomas and three named codefendants were jointly informed against in the Hillsborough County Criminal Court of Record for the offense of robbery. On October 12, 1964, the defendants were arraigned and each pleaded guilty as charged. Thomas was thereupon adjudged guilty and sentenced to imprisonment in the State Prison. From that judgment and sentence Thomas appealed to this 2nd District Court, and on July 7, 1965, we affirmed the conviction. Thomas v. State, Fla.App. 1965,177 So.2d 83.
On August 17, 1966, Thomas filed a motion under then Rule 1 to vacate the judgment and sentence on the principal ground that he did not have the benefit of adequate counsel in the trial Court proceedings when he pleaded guilty. On September 9, 1966, the trial Court denied the Rule 1 motion, from which order Thomas appealed to this *716Court. On February 22, 1967, we affirmed the order. Thomas v. State, Fla.App. 1967, 195 So.2d 256. In our opinion we cited three cases in support of our affirmance, all by this 2nd District Court.
On June 19, 1968, Thomas filed in the trial Court a second motion to vacate the judgment and sentence, which motion, on June 27, 1968, was denied by the trial Judge.
On August 1, 1968, Thomas filed another motion to vacate the judgment and sentence and the trial Judge denied this motion on August 7, 1968. Thomas appealed that order to this Court and on February 7, 1969, we affirmed. Thomas v. State, Fla.App. 1969, 218 So.2d 550.
On April 11, 1969, Thomas filed still a further motion to vacate the judgment and sentence pursuant to present CrPR 1.850, successor to former Rule 1. On April 30, 1969, this latest motion was denied by the trial Court, pursuant to which Thomas has appealed to this Court, which constitutes the instant case.
All of the foregoing motions and appeals have been based upon the same general ground, namely, alleged inadequate representation by his Court-appointed counsel in the proceedings leading up to his original guilty plea, adjudication, and sentence. In addition to the direct appeal from that judgment and sentence, taken in February, 1965, there have been four motions to vacate filed under the post-conviction Rule, three of which have appealed to this 2nd District Court. All previous motions have been denied and all previous appeals have been affirmed. The same general ground of incompetency of the original trial counsel has been common in all motions filed and appeals taken.
Present CrPR 1.850, as well as former Rule 1, plainly says that “the sentencing Court shall not be required to entertain a second or successive motion for similar relief on behalf of the same prisoner”. This provision has governed disposition of numerous cases in the appellate Courts of this State. See Mitchell v. State, Fla.App. 1967, 203 So.2d 676; Simpson v. State, Fla.App.1964, 165 So.2d 195; Manning v. State, Fla.App.1964, 167 So.2d 616; Rankin v. State, Fla.App.1964, 168 So.2d 324; Piehl v. State, Fla.App.1965, 173 So.2d 723; Coleman v. State, Fla.App. 1966, 183 So.2d 714.
The order appealed is
Affirmed.
LILES, Acting C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dotson v. State, 299 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)…with pursuant to Rule 3.10(e), Florida Appellate Rules, 32 F.S.A. The order appealed is affirmed on authority of Simpson v. State, Fla.App.2d 1964, 165 So. 2d 195; Gysin v. State, Fla. App.3rd 1968, 205 So. 2d 542; Thomas v. State, Fla.App.2d 1970, 234 So. 2d 715; and Sparks v. State, Fla.App.4th 1972, 262 So. 2d 251. MANN, C. J., and HOBSON and GRIMES, JJ., concur.…
-
Slattery v. State, 433 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…State, 410 So. 2d 500 (Fla.1982); State v. Piehl, 184 So. 2d 417 (Fla.1966); Mathis v. State, 419 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Hogan v. State, 388 So. 2d 1377 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Neal v. State, 349 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Thomas v. State, 234 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970). Affirmed.…
Authorities Cited (12 total)
- Elder Emmitt Glover v. State, 203 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)
- Morgan Simpson v. State, 165 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Piehl v. State, 173 So. 2d 723 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965)
- Rankin v. State, 168 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)
- Rossie D. Coleman v. State, 183 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)
- Govoni v. Blackwell, 167 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Manning v. State, 167 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)
- Thomas v. State, 195 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)
- Honold v. State, 177 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Prickett v. State, 177 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)