ISTVAN J. ERSEK, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Istvan Ersek appealed the summary denial of his Rule 1.850 petition attacking his guilty plea to first-degree murder, claiming the plea was coerced or involuntary. The court affirmed the denial, finding the record demonstrated a voluntary plea entered after full consultation with counsel and thorough judicial examination.
The trial judge properly denied the petition for collateral relief. The record demonstrates that Ersek was fully informed of his rights by competent counsel, thoroughly questioned by the trial judge regarding the voluntariness of his plea, and there is no basis to interfere with the denial order.
[1] A petition for post-conviction relief may be summarily denied if the record demonstrates no reason to interfere with the trial judge's order.
[2] A defendant's plea is considered voluntary when the trial court exhaustively examines the defendant regarding the plea's voluntariness.
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“A clear reading of this record shows that the appellant was fully informed of his rights by most able counsel, fully questioned by a conscientious trial judge as to the voluntariness of his plea; and this record demonstrates no reason to interfere with the trial judge's order here under review.”
The court's core holding that the record supports the trial judge's finding of a voluntary plea based on full disclosure and examination.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceErsek was indicted for first-degree murder in November 1960 and was declared insolvent with two court-appointed counsel provided. He initially pleaded…
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 Coerced Guilty Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant seeks review of a summary denial of his petition, seeking relief pursuant to Rule 1.850 Cr.P.R., 33 F.S.A. He was indicted for first degree murder in November, 1960. He was adjudicated insolvent at that time; two court-appointed counsel were made available to him. He pleaded not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity. He was examined by court-appointed physicians; determined to be sane. Subsequently, in January, 1961, he elected to withdraw his pleas and plead guilty, which was permitted after exhaustive examination by the trial court. He was then sentenced to life imprisonment. In August, 1969, he filed a petition under the aforesaid criminal rule, collaterally attacking his conviction, contending that his plea had been coerced or was not voluntary. Upon hearing on the petition, the trial judge examined the record and summarily denied same. We affirm.
No excuse was given for the delay in the filing of the petition collaterally attacking the appellant’s conviction. It seems clear that this is another case of a defendant being unwilling to run the risk of a capital conviction and, after a long lapse of time, attempting to get a new trial when obviously the State’s witnesses and evidence are Unavailable or, at best, would be difficult to obtain. A clear reading of this record shows that the appellant was fully informed of his rights by most able counsel, fully questioned by a conscientious trial judge as to the voluntariness of his plea; and this record demonstrates no reason to interfere with the trial judge’s order here under review. Plymale v. State, Fla.App.1967, 201 So.2d 85; Lee v. State, Fla.App.1967, 204 So.2d 245; Jackson v. State, Fla.App.1968, 215 So.2d 784; Brumley v. State, Fla.App.1969, 224 So.2d 447; Garcia v. State, Fla.App.1969, 228 So.2d 300; Steinhauser v. State, Fla.App.1969, 228 So.2d 446; Halliday v. United States, 394 U.S. 831, 89 S.Ct. 1498, 23 L.Ed.2d 16; Bishop v. Sharkey, Dist.Ct. Dist. of R.I.1969, 306 F. Supp. 246; Hall v. State, Ct.Cr.App.Ala.1969, 228 So.2d 863; Selph v. Veron, 254 La. 1095, 229 So.2d 111.
Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the order denying petition for relief is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dixon v. State, 252 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)…nnection, attention is called to Pait v. State, Fla.App.1966, 188 So. 2d 15; Plymale v. State, Fla.App.1967, 201 So. 2d 85; Jackson v. State, Fla.App.1968, 215 So. 2d 784; Goodall v. State, Fla.App.1970, 232 So. 2d 263; Ersek v. State, Fla.App.1970, 238 So. 2d 481; O’Fallon v. State, Fla.App., 239 So. 2d 872; North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162. [*596] Wherefore, for the above reasons, we find that the trial judge was eminently correct in denying the relief sought on the record…
-
Miller v. State, 378 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Pait v. State, 188 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966); Ersek v. State, 238 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970); Dixon v. State, 252 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); McCrae v. State, 313 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Robinson v. State, 321 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Crespo v. State, 339 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Capo v. State, 363 S…
-
Crum v. State, 399 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Ersek v. State, 238 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970).…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Halliday v. United States, 394 U.S. 831 (U.S. 1969)
- Steinhauser v. State, 228 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)
- Garcia v. State, 228 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Maxwood Clarence Brumley v. State, 224 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)
- Plymale v. State, 201 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- LEE v. State, 204 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)
- Landon v. Landon, 215 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Jackson v. State, 215 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)