RICHARD DALLAS POTTS, 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.
Richard Dallas Potts appeals the denial of a post-conviction motion claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court summarily denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing, and the appellate court affirmed because Potts failed to allege sufficient factual support for his ineffectiveness claim.
The trial court did not err in summarily denying the post-conviction motion because Potts failed to allege sufficient facts to support his ineffectiveness claim. A petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel must contain allegations of fact strong enough to show that the alleged incompetency made the trial a mockery or farce, and an evidentiary hearing is not required when the petition's allegations are not factually sufficient.
[1] A post-conviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel must set forth substantial facts to support the claim.
[2] A conclusory allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel, without supporting factual allegations, is insufficient to warrant post-conviction relief.
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 substantial facts are set forth in the motion to sustain such conclusory allegation of ineffectiveness”
Establishes the threshold requirement for post-conviction ineffective assistance claims: sufficient factual allegations rather than conclusory statements.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePotts was charged with robbery in 1966 and tried in February 1967. He was convicted and sentenced to state prison. At trial, testimony regarding anoth…
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 Legal Sufficiency Of Allegations cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant Richard Dallas Potts appeals to this Court from an order entered by the Hillsborough County Criminal Court of Record summarily denying a post-conviction motion brought under CrPR 1.850, 33 F.S.A.
*730On October 13, 1966, information was filed charging Potts with robbery. On February 3, 1967, he was tried on said information, and when convicted was so adjudged by the Court and sentenced to a term in the State Prison. His motion for new trial was denied and he took a direct appeal from the judgment as entered, on the sole ground that the trial court erred in admitting testimony concerning the commission of another crime by appellant. This Court affirmed the conviction.
On August 28, 1969, he filed motion to vacate the judgment and sentence under CrPR 1.850 and on September 15, 1969, the motion was denied by the Court. On April 9, 1970, he filed a second motion for post-conviction relief, which was likewise denied by the trial Court on May 5, 1970. From the latter order of denial he appeals to this Court.
Only one contention is made here in furtherance of his post-conviction motion, namely, that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at the trial.
But no substantial facts are set forth in the motion to sustain such conclu-sory allegation of ineffectiveness. In the absence of sufficient allegations of fact to support such naked averment the Courts of Florida have been uniform in holding such petitions, grounded upon such contention, to be insufficient. Boone v. State, Fla.App.1966, 183 So.2d 869. In fact, such allegations of fact must be so strong as to show that such alleged incompetency of counsel made the trial a mockery or a farce. Plymale v. State, Fla.App.1966, 182 So.2d 57; Coleman v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 854; Smith v. State, Fla.App.1965, 175 So.2d 243; Wade v. State, Fla.App.1965, 177 So.2d 695; Crusoe v. State, Fla.App.1966, 183 So.2d 600.
The trial Court is not required to have an evidentiary hearing upon such petition for relief when the allegations of the petition itself are not factually sufficient to warrant relief.
Because of such fatal deficiency of the petition in the instant case, the order appealed from is—
Affirmed.
HOBSON and McNULTY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Parker v. State, 295 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)…has generally been held that the test as to competency of trial counsel is whether the facts alleged show that the trial was reduced to a mockery or a farce. (Simpson v. State, Fla.App. (3d) 1964, 164 So. 2d 224; Potts v. State, Fla.App. (2d) 1971, 242 So. 2d 729) Our ‘ examination of the record reveals that the trial was neither a mockery nor a farce and that in fact defendant received able representation. A defendant in a criminal case is entitled to a fair trial, not necessarily a perfect one. (Frazier v…
-
State v. Garmise, 382 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…l attack of the defendant’s criminal conviction under Fla.R. Crim.P. 3.850. Jackson v. State, 353 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); McCrae v. State, 313 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Parker v. State, 295 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); Potts V. State, 242 So. 2d 729 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971); Meinsen v. State, 240 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970); Plymale v. State, 182 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966); Wade v. State, 177 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965); Taylor v. State, 171 So. 2d 402 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965); Sam v. State, 167 So.…
-
Sammie Lee Jackson v. State, 353 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…ery or a farce or that defense counsel was necessarily incompetent, a defendant is not entitled to post conviction relief on the claim of inadequate representation by trial counsel. McCrae v. State, 313 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Potts v. State, 242 So. 2d 729 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971); Meinsen v. State, 240 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970). A review of the record absolutely refutes defendant’s contention that he was inadequately repre [*941] sented or his trial was a mockery or a farce. As a matter of fact, at the…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Crusoe v. State, 183 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)
- Smith v. State, 175 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Boone v. State, 183 So. 2d 869 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)
- Coleman v. State, 172 So. 2d 854 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Plymale v. State, 182 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Wade v. State, 177 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)