FRANKLIN PIERCE MCCALL
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.
Franklin Pierce McCall, convicted of kidnapping to hold for ransom, petitioned the Florida Supreme Court to recall its mandate and grant a rehearing, claiming he was denied the right to counsel at trial. The Court rejected both the petition and a subsequent claim that his guilty plea was obtained through torture and duress, finding that the record affirmatively showed he was represented by competent counsel, entered his plea freely and knowingly, and made a detailed confession.
McCall was not denied the right to counsel; the record affirmatively showed he was represented by competent, experienced counsel who actively participated in his trial. His guilty plea was valid because it was freely and voluntarily given, and his subsequent repudiation of that plea, made on the eve of execution, has no force or effect.
“The record shows affirmatively that when the defendant appeared at the bar of the court with counsel previously appointed to represent him the trial judge asked the defendant and his counsel if they had any motions to present.”
Establishes that McCall was represented by appointed counsel and had the opportunity to raise objections before trial.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMcCall was represented by court-appointed counsel at trial. When the trial began, McCall and his counsel stated they had no motions and were ready to …
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 Recall Of Mandate cases and more on FLexlaw
— The plaintiff in error, Franklin Pierce McCall, through his counsel, has presented to us a motion in the form of an Extraordinary Petition for Recall of Mandate heretofore issued in this case and for a rehearing.
In that petition he has set up eighteen (18) numbered paragraphs. The sum total of all the allegations contained in the petition is that this Court in rendering its opinion and judgment filed herein on the 3rd day of January, 1939, overlooked the rule.of law that the plaintiff in error had the right, under the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, to be represented by counsel at his trial and that such right was in substance denied.
The conditions assumed by the petitioner in his petition to have existed are not shown by the record to have existed, but the contrary is shown.
■ We have in our opinion, supra, set out in detail what'the récord shows occurred at and concerning the trial. The record shows affirmatively that when the deféndant appeared at the bar of the court with counsel previously appointed to represent him the trial judge asked the defendant *319and his counsel if they had any motions to present. Counsel replied' in effect that they had no motions to present and 'were read}^ to proceed. When the State had introduced its evidence before the.trial judge, upon being interrogated bj his counsel, McCall stated that he had entered a plea of guilty to the indictment charging kidnaping to hold for ransom, and he reasserted that such was his plea. He. then clearly, intelligently and deliberately told in detail each step of his perpetration of the crime charged. He made no contention that he was not guilty of the crime charged in Lho indictment, nor did he make any contention of any sort that if given all the time of the future he could prepare any defense to' the charge then pending against him.
Counsel appointed for him by the Court is recognized by this Court as an able, active and conscientious lawyer of many yeafs of experience in the trial of criminal cases. We recognize the rule laid down in the cases of Powell v. Alabama, 287 U. S. 45, 77 Law Ed. 158, and Johnson v. Zerbst, as Warden, 58 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1019, but we find that the rules stated in those cases have no application in the instant case because of the controlling differences in factual conditions.
We also have before us a petition filed by one T. PI. Crowson, on behalf of plaintiff in error in which he petitions this Court to reverse the judgment and to award a new trial upon the ground that McCall now has asserted as follows:
“(1) That I do hereby assert my innocence of the crime alleged and do protest that my plea of ‘guilty’ in the court was obtained from me by torture, duress and fraudulent misrepresentation of the facts involved; and
■ “(2) That I do request that this be considered as a full repudiation of the afores'aid former ‘plea’ of ‘guilty,’ and that all concerted to whom this may come take due notice *320thereunto and act as the law provides and according to justice; and,” etc.
This alleged repudiation can have no more force and ef-' feet than such action would have in any other case where a man has freely and voluntarily fully admitted his guilt and then, when about to be executed for the crime, decides to tell some other story with the hope of escaping .punishment.
Both petitions are denied.
So ordered.
Terrell, C. J., and Whitfield, Brown, Buford, Chapman, and T homas, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Whitney v. State, 184 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)…rmed [2 Cir.] 244 F. 2d 520, cert. den. 355 U.S. 873, 78 S.Ct. 120, 2 L.Ed.2d 77; Alexander v. United States, 5 Cir., 290 F. 2d 252; Snell v. State, 158 Fla. 431, 28 So. 2d 863, cert. den. 331 U.S. 830, 67 S.Ct. 1352, 91 L.Ed. 1844; McCall v. State, 136 Fla. 317, 186 So. 510.” s{c í[í As to the fifth reason, the admissibility of the extra-judicial confession, the appellant relies on the United States Supreme Court decision in Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977. It h…
-
Whitney v. Cochran, 152 So. 2d 727 (Fla. 1963)…515, affirmed 244 F. 2d 520, cert. den. 355 U.S. 873, 78 S.Ct. 120, 2 L.Ed.2d 77; Alexander v. United States, 5 Cir., 290 F. 2d 252; Snell v. State, 158 Fla. 431, 28 So. 2d 863, cert. den. 331 U.S. 830, 67 S.Ct. 1352, 91 L.Ed. 1844; McCall v. State, 136 Fla. 317, 186 So. 510. There can be no doubt that an accused can knowingly waive constitutional guarantees of confrontation, cross examination, and protection against self-incrimination. The original trial record and the testimony before the commissioner ce…
-
State v. Domingo Garcia, 224 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)…s a majority of the jury in their verdict recommend mercy, in -which event punishment shall be by imprisonment in the state prison for life, or for any term of years within the discretion of the judge.” . McCall v. State, 135 Fla. 712, 185 So. 608; 136 Fla. 317, 186 So. 510; 136 Fla. 343, 186 So. 667.…
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
- Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (U.S. 1938)
- Ozie Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (U.S. 1932)