BERNARD MARTIN ZIDE, 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.
Zide appealed the denial of his motion to vacate his conviction and sentence. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's denial, rejecting all of Zide's claims including denial of counsel, due process violations, defects in the information, trial counsel incompetence, use of perjured testimony, and confrontation clause issues.
The court held that none of Zide's claims warranted reversal. The denial of the motion to vacate was affirmed because: (1) his counsel representation claims lacked merit; (2) his prior direct appeal precluded treating the motion as a delayed motion for new trial; (3) he failed to allege facts showing prejudice from lack of preliminary hearing; (4) conviction on unverified information is not error; (5) trial counsel was competent; (6) the perjured testimony claim was already disposed of on direct appeal; and (7) his confrontation clause claim was vague and unsupported by factual allegations.
[1] A defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is without merit when the record shows multiple attorneys represented the defendant, and the defendant expressed…
[2] A motion to vacate a judgment of conviction and sentence cannot be considered a delayed motion for a new trial if the defendant has already had a direct appeal from the j…
Previewing 2 of 6 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“None of these were satisfactory to him as he claimed they were incompetent or unsatisfactory in their representation. This point does not warrant reversal.”
Establishes that mere dissatisfaction with counsel representation, without more, does not constitute grounds for relief on a motion to vacate.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceZide was convicted and filed a motion to vacate his judgment of conviction and sentence. After an evidentiary hearing, the lower court denied the moti…
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 Competency Of Trial Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
Zide filed a motion to vacate his judgment of conviction and sentence. After an evidentiary hearing the court denied his motion and he has appealed.
His claim that he was denied assistance of counsel at the evidentiary hearing is without merit. The record shows he *918had various attorneys represent him including private counsel, the public defender and court appointed counsel. None of these were satisfactory to him as he claimed they were incompetent or unsatisfactory in their representation. This point does not warrant reversal. State v. Weeks, Fla.1964, 166 So.2d 892.
Zide had a direct appeal from his judgment and sentence. Zide v. State, Fla.App.1968, 212 So.2d 788. Therefore, Jackson v. State, Fla.App.1964, 166 So.2d 194, does not apply and there was no error in the denial of his request to consider his motion to vacate as a delayed motion for a new trial.
His claim that he was denied due process because he was not given a preliminary hearing also fails. He does not allege any facts to show prejudice. Lawson v. State, Fla.App.1968, 215 So.2d 790.
His next contention appears to be that he was convicted on an information which was not verified. This argument was held unsound in Bretti v. State, Fla.App.1970, 239 So.2d 527. See also Rule 1.-140(g), CrPR, 33 F.S.A.
The trial judge heard argument on the issue that his trial counsel was incompetent and ruled that his trial attorney conducted the trial in a competent manner. No error has been demonstrated in this ruling. Sellers v. State, Fla.App.1971, 249 So.2d 519.
His point that the State knowingly used perjured testimony at trial is based on the same facts that were argued and considered on direct appeal under a point directed to the weight and sufficiency of the evidence. Matters raised and disposed of on direct appeal cannot be a basis for post-conviction relief. Carter v. State, Fla.App.1971, 242 So.2d 737.
His last point states, “does the right of an accused to be confronted with the witnesses against attach before the trial”. The vagueness of this point suggests its failure. The claim is without merit as it is supported only by conclusions of law and not by factual allegations. See Sellers v. State, supra.
The order appealed herein is
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cooper v. State, 296 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…App.1967, 202 So. 2d 132; McKenzie v. State, Fla.App. 1967, 202 So. 2d 578; Suarez v. State, Fla.App. 1969, 220 So. 2d 442; Albright v. State, Fla.App. 1970, 239 So. 2d 641; Cobbs v. State, Fla.App. 1970, 241 So. 2d 178; Zide v. State, Fla.App.1971, 253 So. 2d 917; Cooper v. State, Fla.App.1972, 261 So. 2d 859.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Weeks, 166 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 1964)
- Jackson v. State, 166 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Carter v. State, 242 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)
- Reuel Lawson v. State, 215 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)
- Zide v. State, 212 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Bretti v. State, 239 So. 2d 527 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)
- Sellers v. State, 249 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)