ROBERT RAY STROUP, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
The court denies the petition for writ of habeas corpus without prejudice, allowing the petitioner to refile a post-conviction relief motion.
Petitioner alleged he was convicted of robbery in Florida without counsel and later filed a motion for post-conviction relief which was denied as moot…
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 Writ Of Habeas Corpus cases and more on FLexlaw
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
Petitioner alleges in his petition that he is presently confined in the Federal Correctional Institution in Texarkana, Texas. He further alleges that in 1958 he was convicted of robbery in the Criminal Court of Hillsborough County, Florida and upon conviction was adjudged guilty and sentenced to three (3) years in prison. He further alleges that during the entire proceedings in Florida he was without benefit of counsel, never informed of his right to counsel, was without funds to obtain counsel and at no time did he waive counsel.
Petitioner filed a motion for post-conviction relief under the provisions of Rule 3.850 FRCrP, 33 F.S.A. in the Criminal Court of Hillsborough County, Florida in March 1972. This motion was denied in May 1972 on the grounds that the sentence had expired. Petitioner did not appeal the denial of his motion.
We must deny the present petition; however, such denial is without prejudice to petitioner’s right to file another motion under Rule 3.850 FRCrP in view of the recent case of Wilcox v. State, 267 So.2d 15 (Fla.App.1972) and the cases cited therein.
Petition denied without prejudice.
PIERCE, C. J., and HOBSON and Mc-NULTY, JT., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Raysor v. State, 272 So. 2d 867 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)…hat the denial of this right to the appellant was a substantial prejudicial error which requires a new trial.” See also Davis v. State, Fla.App. 1971, 256 So. 2d 22; Cagnina v. State, Fla.App.1965, 175 So. 2d 577, and Wyatt v. State, Fla. App.1972, 270 So. 2d 47. In further extension, we are at a loss as a practical matter to know just how any criminal defendant could in fact make a demonstration of error because of the refusal of the trial court to follow the dictates of the Rule. It is inherent in the pro…
-
Stepphone Freeman v. State, 846 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…P. 3.250. The defense’s right to make the final closing argument, where no evidence except the defendant’s own testimony has been introduced, is a vested procedural right, the denial of which constitutes reversible error. See Wyatt v. [*555] State, 270 So. 2d 47, 49 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). This error is not subject to harmless error analysis. See Wike v. State, 648 So. 2d 683, 686 (Fla.1994); Raysor v. State, 272 So. 2d 867, 869 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). We therefore reverse and remand for a new trial. Reversed fo…
-
Abel B. Garcia v. Soto, 337 So. 3d 355 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022)…take judicial notice of its contents. See § 90.202(11)–(12), Fla. Stat. (2021). A matter judicially noticed must be of common and general knowledge. Nielsen v. Carney Groves, Inc., 159 So. 2d 489, 491 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964); see also Wyatt v. State, 270 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972) (defining judicial notice as “the cognizance of certain facts which judges and jurors may properly take and act upon without proof, because they already know them” (quoting Mitchum v. State, 251 So. 2d 298, 300 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Wilcox v. State, 267 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972)