LEON GAYLE, 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.
Appellant Leon Gayle pleaded guilty to five robbery counts and was sentenced to terms of hard labor. He filed a post-conviction motion alleging failure to give Miranda warnings, coercion into confession, lack of understanding of his rights and the charges, and illegal line-up identification. The court held that because Gayle was represented by counsel at sentencing, his guilty plea was valid, but the appellate court reversed because unrefuted allegations regarding pre-trial police conduct required an evidentiary hearing.
Gayle is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his motion to vacate and set aside judgment and sentence. The fact that he was represented by private counsel at sentencing does not cure alleged defects in the prior police questioning, coercion, and violations of his rights.
[1] A defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a motion to vacate judgment and sentence when the motion alleges facts that, if true, would entitle the defendant to…
[2] A guilty plea entered without an affirmative showing on the record that the defendant was aware of his rights and voluntarily waived them may be grounds for vacating the…
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“Petitioner, after being represented by counsel of his own choosing, confessed his guilt and waived all his constitutional rights intelligently, freely and voluntarily.”
The trial court's reasoning for denying the motion without a hearing, which the appellate court rejected as insufficient.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGayle was charged on five separate informations of robbery, represented by private counsel, and entered a guilty plea. He was adjudicated guilty and s…
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 Lineup Identification cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant Leon Gayle was charged on five separate informations of robbery. He was represented by private counsel and entered a plea of guilty. He was adjudicated guilty by the court and sentenced to serve ten years at hard labor on one information; six months to ten years consecutive on one information; six months to ten years concurrent on one information, six months to ten years consecutive on one information and on the other information six months to ten years concurrent.
Appellant filed, in proper person, a motion to vacate and set aside judgment and sentence pursuant to CrPR 3.850, 33 F.S.A. The trial judge entered its order denying the motion to vacate and set aside judgment and sentence without an evidentiary hearing, holding that “Petitioner, after being represented by counsel of his own choosing, confessed his guilt and waived all his constitutional rights intelligently, freely and voluntarily.”
Appellant alleged in his motion, among other things, that he was taken into custody two months prior to the imposition of his sentence; that he was questioned by the police for hours without an attorney representing him and without his Miranda warnings. Miranda v. Arizona (1966), 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694. Appellant further alleged that he was coerced into confessing by the arresting officers; that he did not know he was entitled to a trial; that he was identified in a line-up without aid of an attorney and that no one explained to him the penalty for five counts of robbery.
Following the denial of appellant’s motion, the public defender was appointed to represent him in his appeal. In that capacity, the public defender requested from the official court reporter a transcript of the record at the sentencing. He was informed by the reporter that this occurred on “the very first day that reporting of pleas became compulsory” and that this case was not reported. We, therefore, have no record to refute in any way the allegations made in appellant’s motion. If what he has alleged is true, the fact that he was represented by private counsel at sentencing does not cure the defect.
We believe, pursuant to Boykin v. State of Alabama, 1969, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274, and Florida cases, Flores v. Wainwright, Fla.App.1970, 240 So.2d 816; Young v. State, Fla.App.1970, 233 So.2d 178, appellant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his motion.
Reversed and remanded for an evidenti-ary hearing.
PIERCE, C. J., and HOBSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966)
- Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (U.S. 1969)
- Flores v. Louie L. Wainwright, 240 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)
- Young v. State, 233 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)