WILLIE TOM HOLMES, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE, (2 CASES)
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.
Appellant's collateral attack on a 1964 murder conviction was affirmed because his allegations of trial error and ineffective assistance of counsel were either conclusively negated by the trial transcript or made without factual support.
A collateral attack on a murder conviction must be dismissed when allegations of trial error and ineffective assistance of counsel are either contradicted by the trial transcript or made without factual substantiation.
[1] A bald allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel without factual substantiation does not entitle a defendant to an evidentiary hearing in a collateral attack procee…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWillie Tom Holmes was sentenced to life imprisonment in 1964 for the murder of Robert Lewis. He sought collateral relief alleging he was arrested with…
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 Trial Error cases and more on FLexlaw
By collateral attack appellant seeks to vacate judgment and sentence entered by the Circuit Court of Volusia County on October 14, 1964, wherein he was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of one Robert Lewis.
Appellant alleges: That he was threatened by Robert Lewis, arrested without a warrant, was not told of his right to counsel during arrest, was constantly questioned by officers, was not assisted competently by counsel as required by law, and the court failed to have a knife allegedly possessed by the deceased brought into court as an exhibit to corroborate his defense of self defense. This Court has examined the transcript of the trial proceedings in this cause, same having been filed in Case No. 1-198. The allegations pertaining to evidentiary matters were properly resolved in the trial of the cause by the jury and have no relevancy in this post-conviction proceeding. House v. State, 199 So.2d 134 (Fla.App.1st 1967).
Appellant’s claim that counsel did not competently assist him is a bald allegation without any showing of facts to substantiate same and does not entitle appellant to an evidentiary hearing. State v. Barton, 194 So.2d 241 (Fla.1967).
Other allegations made by appellant are conclusively negated by the transcript of record in this cause.
Affirmed.
JOHNSON, C. J., and SPECTOR, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bright v. State, 257 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…or reversal unless the testimony is such as to be unworthy of belief. Rowe v. State, Fla.1924, 87 Fla. 17, 98 So. 613. Such was not the case here. Appellant’s bald assertion of incompetency of counsel is rejected. See Holmes v. State, Fla.App.1970, 239 So. 2d 876 and Humphries v. State, Fla.App.1970, 232 So. 2d 23. [*613] When it patently appears from a reading of appellant’s motion that it is entirely deficient because no grounds for relief under Rule 3.850 CrPR are stated, the appellant is not entitled to…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Barton, 194 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 1967)
- House v. State, 199 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)