WILLIAM JENNINGS, JR., 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.
The court held that the trial court properly denied the motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing.
Defendant was convicted of armed robbery, and his conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. He later filed a motion for post-conviction …
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 Committing Magistrate cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was informed against, tried and convicted of the crime of armed robbery and sentenced to thirty years confinement. The defendant appealed, and this court affirmed. See 228 So.2d 117. Thereafter, the defendant filed a motion in the trial court for relief from the conviction and sentence, under Rule 1.850 Cr PR, 33 F.S.A. The grounds upon which relief was sought in said motion, as summarized by the public defender at the time the motion was presented in the trial court, and as disclosed in the record, were:
“1. Petitioner alleges that the State Attorney acted as both the prosecuting attorney and committing magistrate.
“2. Petitioner alleges that the Public Defender hid, withheld and/or destroyed Defendant’s Motions and legal documents pertaining to the instant case.”
The trial court denied the motion without evidentiary hearing. This appeal is by the defendant from the trial court’s ruling.
On this appeal the defendant presents eleven points. Two of these points reassert contentions which were rejected by this court on his initial appeal. Others raise matters not presented in his motion and are therefore inappropriate on this appeal.
*248Relevant to the Rule 1.850 motion, appellant contends his conviction should be set aside because he was not taken before a committing magistrate without delay following arrest. The defendant was informed against and pleaded not guilty to the charge. Therefore no prejudice is to be presumed, and none was disclosed. See Baugus v. State, Fla.1962, 141 So.2d 264, 267; Shannon v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 479; Blunt v. State, Fla.App.1967, 203 So.2d 49, 51.
The defendant’s second contention in the motion was properly regarded by the trial court to be refuted by the record, which shows an extensive and earnest defense of the cause by counsel on behalf of the accused.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gates v. State, 353 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…[*933] PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See: Thomas v. State, 183 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966); Flagler v. State, 198 So. 2d 313 (Fla.1967); Jennings v. State, 248 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); Morrison v. State, 283 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973).…
-
Jennings v. Louie L. Wainwright, 486 F.2d 1041 (5th Cir. 1973)…Criminal Court of Record for Dade County, Florida, the appellant, William Jennings, Jr., was convicted of armed robbery, State disposition of Jennings’ original appeal and subsequent motions to vacate are reported, Jennings v. State, 228 So. 2d 117; 248 So. 2d 247; and 268 So. 2d 576 (D.C.A., Fla., 1969, 1971, and 1972). Jennings has filed four previous petitions for habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. In the instant proceedings Jennings contends that he is…
Authorities Cited
- Baugus v. State, 141 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 1962)
- Blunt v. State, 203 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)
- Douzier Shannon v. State, 172 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Sutton v. King, 228 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969)