JERALD MOREHOUSE, 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.
Morehouse appeals his convictions for forgery and revocation of probation from a narcotic drug conviction. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, finding that the appellant's assignments of error were inapplicable to a guilty plea case and that his arguments on appeal lacked proper assignment of error support.
The court affirmed the convictions, holding that assignments of error relating to judgments of acquittal were inapplicable where the defendant pleaded guilty, and that points argued in the brief without supporting assignments of error are not entitled to consideration. On the merits, the guilty pleas were voluntary and there was no insufficiency or irregularity in the probation revocation proceedings.
[1] A point raised in a brief on appeal must be supported by a corresponding assignment of error to be considered by the court.
[2] A guilty plea renders assignments of error related to motions for judgment of acquittal inapplicable.
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“Points made in a brief should be accompanied by a designation of the assignment or assignments of error from which the point argued arises. Rule 3.7f(4) FAR, 32 F.S.A. A point in a brief which is not supported by any assignment of error is not entitled to consideration.”
Establishes the procedural requirement that appellate arguments must be supported by proper assignments of error
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMorehouse was convicted of unlawful possession of a narcotic drug in September 1970 and placed on probation for five years. In April and May 1972, he …
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 Assignments Of Error cases and more on FLexlaw
On September 8, 1970, the appellant was convicted of unlawful possession of a narcotic drug, and was placed on probation for five years. In April and May of 1972, two informations were filed against the appellant charging him with forgery. While represented by counsel, the appellant pleaded guilty to the latter charges following certain plea bargaining which the court referred to as “plea discussion.” The latter included an understanding that the sentences to be imposed for the forgery offenses would run concurrently with a sentence which was being imposed on the earlier narcotic offense, upon revocation of the probation which had been granted on the latter. On all three convictions sentences were imposed for imprisonment for three years, less thirty-six days presentence jail time. The defendant appealed.
Three assignments of error were filed. First, that the court erred in denying the defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the state’s case. Second, that the court erred in denying defendant’s motion for judgment for acquittal at the close of all the evidence. Third, that the court erred in denying the defendant’s motion for new trial. Those assignments were inapplicable, where the defendant had pleaded guilty. The points stated and argued in the brief of the appellant were, first, whether the trial court erred in accepting the defendant’s guilty plea, and second, whether the court had jurisdiction to revoke the probation. As pointed out by the state, neither of those contentions on appeal were supported by an assignment of error, and for that reason affirmance is indicated. See' Davidson v. Bezant, 101 Fla. 1296, 132 So. 488. Points made in a brief should be accompanied by a designation of the assignment or assignments of error from which the point argued arises. Rule 3.7f(4) FAR, 32 F.S.A. A point in a brief which is not supported by any assignment of error is not entitled to consideration. City of Opa-locka v. Metropolitan Dade County, Fla.App.1971, 247 So.2d 755.
Nor do we find basis for reversal on the merits of the points presented by the appellant. The contention of the appellant that his guilty pleas to the informations charging forgery were not voluntarily made is conclusively refuted by the record. No insufficiency or irregularity was shown in the proceedings resulting in revocation of probation.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brady v. State, 518 So. 2d 1305 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…xt to the post conviction motions, we find that they are not available to a defendant that pleads guilty. See United States v. Prince, 533 F. 2d 205 (5th Cir.1976); Williams v. United States, 290 F. 2d 217 (5th Cir.1961); compare Morehouse v. State, 276 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). A plea of nolo contendere for post trial motions is considered as a plea of guilty. Stovall v. State, 252 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971); Russell v. State, 233 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970). Even if these motions were available,…
Authorities Cited
- Davidson v. Bezant, 132 So. 488 (Fla. 1931)
- City OF Opa-Locka v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 247 So. 2d 755 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)