JAMES O'FALLON, 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.
James O'Fallon appealed the denial of post-conviction relief following his guilty plea to second degree murder. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of his motion, finding his allegations of coerced plea and ineffective counsel were conclusory and unsupported by sufficient factual allegations.
The court affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief, holding that the motion was patently without sufficient facts to support the bare allegations of coercion and inefficient counsel, and therefore no relief could be granted without factual support beyond conclusory allegations.
[1] A motion for post-conviction relief is properly denied without an evidentiary hearing when the motion fails to set forth sufficient facts to sustain its allegations on it…
[2] A guilty plea is considered knowing, intelligent, and voluntary when the trial court thoroughly interrogates the defendant regarding the plea and its consequences.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“No sufficient facts are set forth in the motion for relief on either ground relied upon as aforesaid to sustain it upon its face.”
Establishes the core holding that conclusory allegations without factual support cannot sustain post-conviction relief.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceO'Fallon pleaded guilty to second degree murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment. The trial judge conducted a recorded, detailed inquiry in open…
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 Incompetence Of Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant James O’Fallon appeals to this Court from an order entered by the Sarasota County Circuit Court denying his motion for post-conviction relief under Cr.P.R. 1.850, 33 F.S.A., after he had previously entered plea of guilty to a charge of second degree murder and been sentenced to life imprisonment.
Fifty-two days after his guilty plea and sentence, O’Fallon filed in the trial Court a motion to vacate the judgment and sentence on the ground that his constitutional rights had been violated because his plea of guilty had been “coerced” and that he was represented by “incompetent counsel”. The trial Judge denied the motion without evidentiary hearing, and O’Fallon has appealed to this Court from such order.
The local Public Defender, representing O’Fallon in this Court, has filed brief on his behalf wherein it is stated that “counsel for Appellant can only agree with the Trial Court that this is a frivolous motion and appeal. Appellant was questioned at length as to the voluntariness of his plea, and as to his satisfaction with his Court appointed counsel. All of the answers were in the affirmative”. It was thereupon moved that “this appeal be dismissed as frivolous”, citing Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493.
Copy of the brief aforesaid was furnished to O’Fallon by certified mail and was so received by O’Fallon on June 29, 1970, according to a return receipt signed by O’Fallon, which has been filed in this cause. Thereafter, on July 9, 1970, this Court entered order allowing O’Fallon *873thirty days within which to “file an additional brief calling the Court’s attention to any matters that he feels should be considered in connection with the appeal in this cause”. Said thirty days period has long since expired and no further brief or other document has been received from or on behalf of O’Fallon. This Court has thereupon proceeded to carefully examine and consider the entire record before this Court. We fail to find reversible error.
No sufficient facts are set forth in the motion for relief on either ground relied upon as aforesaid to sustain it upon its face. We affirm.
The record filed in this Court shows affirmatively that on December 5, 1969, the trial Judge, with the assistance of the local Assistant State Attorney and in the presence of counsel for O’Fallon and also in the presence of the local Parole and Probation officer, tediously and at length interrogated O’Fallon in open Court as to whether his proffered guilty plea to second degree murder upon the first degree indictment was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made, and that all possible consequences thereof had been fully made known to him. It was only after this had been fully established by recorded inquiry that the Court finally agreed to accept such plea and sentenced him accordingly. O’Fallon in his motion for relief does not deny any of the facts of record and states no affirmative facts colorably sufficient to warrant relief.
The petition was patently without sufficient facts to support the bare allegations of coercion and inefficiency of counsel relied upon, and the authorities are legion that in such case no relief can be granted. See Steinhauser v. State, Fla.App.1969, 228 So.2d 446; Ballard v. State, Fla.App.1967, 200 So.2d 597; Devlin v. State, Fla.App.1966, 192 So.2d 786; Dozier v. State, Fla.App.1966, 192 So.2d 506; Smith v. State, Fla.App.1966, 192 So.2d 41; Plymale v. State, Fla.App.1966, 182 So.2d 57; State v. Barton, Fla.1967, 194 So.2d 241.
The order appealed is—
Affirmed.
LILES, A. C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dixon v. State, 252 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)…e, 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 as then presented to him, and therefore the…
-
Bogan v. State, 832 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…rial counsel. However, he alleged no facts in support of his claim. On its face, the bare-bones motion was legally insufficient, and the trial court’s denial was proper. See Harris v. State, 818 So. 2d 567, 568 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); O’Fallon v. State, 239 So. 2d 872, 873 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970). Therefore, we affirm the denial of relief. Affirmed. FULMER and COVINGTON, JJ., Concur.…
-
Hall v. State, 273 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)…ton, Fla.1967, 194 So. 2d 241; Jernigan v. State, Fla.App.1968, 214 So. 2d 66, cert. dism’d 228 So. 2d 273, cert. den. 397 U.S. 1029, 90 S.Ct. 1279, 25 L.Ed.2d 541; Steinhauser v. State, Fla.App.1969, 228 So. 2d 446; O’Fallon v. State, Fla.App.1970, 239 So. 2d 872; Kelly v. State, Fla.App.1971, 254 So. 2d 22; People v. Sepulvado, 1970, 27 Mich.App. 66, 183 N.W. 2d 327; Dill v. State, Fla.App.1971, 248 So. 2d 502. Compare with Clark v. State, Fla.App.1972, 256 So. 2d 551; Young v. State, Fla.App.1970, 233 So.…
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Steinhauser v. State, 228 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)
- State v. Barton, 194 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 1967)
- Ballard v. State, 200 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Devlin v. State, 192 So. 2d 786 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Plymale v. State, 182 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Garnest Washington Hudson v. State, 192 So. 2d 506 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Laures James Dozier v. State, 192 So. 2d 506 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)
- Smith v. State, 192 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)