IRA GOLDSMITH, PETITIONER,
v.
LOUIE L. WAINWRIGHT, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS, RESPONDENT
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.
Goldsmith petitioned for habeas corpus alleging he was denied his right to pursue a direct appeal from his robbery conviction because his court-appointed counsel refused to appeal. The court dismissed the petition, finding that the record showed Goldsmith had in fact pursued multiple appellate remedies and had no meritorious basis for habeas relief.
Goldsmith was not denied his right to appeal because the record affirmatively demonstrates that he had pursued multiple appellate proceedings and remedies. The petition for habeas corpus should be dismissed as lacking any meritorious basis for relief.
[1] A petition for writ of habeas corpus will be denied when the record evidence demonstrates no meritorious basis for relief.
[2] A habeas corpus petition alleging denial of a direct appeal is without merit if the petitioner has pursued and abandoned prior appellate proceedings.
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“he had been denied his right of direct appeal from a previous judgment of conviction entered against him, notwithstanding he had "rigidly requested" his Court appointed trial counsel to pursue such an appeal”
States the petitioner's allegation that formed the basis of the habeas corpus petition
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGoldsmith was convicted by jury of robbery on October 17, 1967, and sentenced to 10 years in prison. He filed a motion to vacate in the trial court on…
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 Judgment And Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
In the above cause petitioner Ira Goldsmith filed in this Court his petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging that he had been denied his right of direct appeal from a previous judgment of conviction entered against him, notwithstanding he had “rigidly requested” his Court appointed trial counsel to pursue such an appeal. Upon such alleged facts we issued the writ and the Attorney General has made response thereto, which response demonstrated abundantly that there is no merit to the petition.
The response shows by record evidence the following: Goldsmith was tried and convicted before a jury in the Court of Record for Escambia County on October 17, 1967, for the offense of robbery and on the same day was sentenced to 10 years in the State Prison; On May 27, 1968, he filed motion in the trial Court to vacate said judgment and sentence, which motion was denied on May 29, 1968; he appealed said order of denial to the 1st District Court of Appeal, resulting in a per curiam affirmance on February 4, 1969; an abortive attempt was made in August, 1969, to appeal from a supposed motion to vacate allegedly filed on May 21, 1968, which appellate “proceeding” was apparently abandoned thereafter; on June 6, 1969, he filed in the Jackson County Circuit Court a motion to vacate a previous judgment of conviction entered in that Court on May 27, 1968, pursuant to his plea of guilty to a charge of escape and a sentence imposed upon him of two years in the State Prison; said motion to vacate was denied by the Jackson County Circuit Court in June, 1969, and upon appeal from said order of denial the 1st District Court of Appeal entered a per curiam affirmance on January 15, 1970; on July 21, 1971, the U. S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville division, denied Goldsmith’s petition for writ of habeas corpus and dismissed the action based upon his claim “that he was arbitrarily and without reason placed in maximum security and prison officials sought to frustrate his attempts to obtain parole or extra gain time”; all of which proceedings had tran*873spired prior to his filing of petition for writ of habeas corpus in the instant case.
From all the foregoing it affirmatively appears now to this Court that no meritorious basis exists for relief of petitioner by habeas corpus. The petition should be and is therefore — ■
Denied and this proceeding dismissed.
LILES, J., concurs.
MANN, J., concurs specially with opinion.
(concurring specially).
I concur in the order dismissing the petition because Goldsmith was neither sentenced within this district nor is he presently in custody within the district. It would seem that this petition is filed in the wrong court. Were we to reach the merits of the petition it would appear that Chief Judge Pierce has accurately described it.
MANN, Judge
(concurring specially).
I concur in the order dismissing the petition because Goldsmith was neither sentenced within this district nor is he presently in custody within the district. It would seem that this petition is filed in the wrong court. Were we to reach the merits of the petition it would appear that Chief Judge Pierce has accurately described it.