LLOYD DONALD GREESON, 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.
Lloyd Greeson appealed the trial court's order striking his motion to vacate a guilty plea and life sentence for second-degree murder. The appellate court reversed, finding that the trial court should have considered depositions filed by appointed counsel as an amendment to the petition and should have held an evidentiary hearing rather than granting the State's motion to strike.
The trial court erred in granting the State's motion to strike. The depositions filed by appointed counsel should have been considered as an amendment to the petition, and the record supplemented by those depositions did not conclusively refute the allegations of irregularity in the acceptance of the guilty plea.
[1] A trial court errs by striking a motion to vacate judgment and sentence when the record, supplemented by witness depositions, does not conclusively refute the allegations…
[2] Depositions taken by appointed counsel in support of a motion to vacate judgment and sentence should be considered an amendment to the original petition.
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“After having appointed an attorney who had exercized energy and diligence in order to determine the factual background under which the plea of guilty was made and the, attorney having filed a summary of the statements of the witnesses, the trial court should have considered the depositions, as reflected by the summary, as an amendment to the petition.”
Establishes that depositions filed by appointed counsel should be treated as amending the original petition and considered by the trial court.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn November 3, 1964, Greeson entered a guilty plea to second-degree murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment. On January 28, 1970, he filed a mot…
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 Sworn Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant entered a plea of guilty to a charge of second degree murder and was adjudged guilty and sentenced to life im*42prisonment on November 3, 1964. On January 28, 1970, the appellant filed a motion to vacate judgment and sentence pursuant CrPR 1.850, 33 F.S.A. The grounds alleged in the motion are (1) that he was denied the assistance of counsel and, (2) that his plea of guilty was not voluntarily entered, but was a result of coercion by the police. The trial court appointed counsel to represent the movant and directed that an evidentiary hearing be held. The court appointed counsel took depositions of suggested witnesses and filed a summary of the statements of these witnesses. On the day of the evidentiary hearing, the State presented a motion to strike the CrPR 1.-850 petition upon the ground that the record conclusively refuted the allegations of the petition. The trial judge granted the motion and struck the motion for relief pursuant to CrPR 1.850. This appeal is from that order.
After having appointed an attorney who had exercized energy and diligence in order to determine the factual background under which the plea of guilty was made and the, attorney having filed a summary of the statements of the witnesses, the trial court should have considered the depositions, as reflected by the summary, as an amendment to the petition. Thus viewed, the State’s motion to strike should not have been granted, although it might have been sustained if directed to the petition as originally filed. The record, as supplemented by the depositions, does not refute the allegations of irregularity in acceptance of the appellant’s guilty plea when viewed in the light of the sworn testimony of the witnesses contained in the depositions. The court should have proceeded with the evidentiary hearing in order to make a factual determination of the allegations of the motion.
We therefore reverse the order striking appellant’s petition for relief pursuant to CrPR 1.850, and remand the cause with directions to conduct an evidentiary hearing upon the motion. Cf. Flores v. Wainwright, Fla.App.1970, 240 So.2d 816; O’Malley v. Wainwright, Fla.App.1970, 237 So.2d 813.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Flores v. Louie L. Wainwright, 240 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)
- O'Malley v. Louie L. Wainwright, 237 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)