JEROME SIEGEL, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed denial of Rule 3.850 post-conviction relief motion where appellant alleged trial judge prejudice, finding no factual basis for prejudice and that the matter was not a proper ground for such relief.
A Rule 3.850 motion alleging possible trial judge prejudice must be denied when the facts do not support prejudice and the trial judge's transfer of the case demonstrates care to avoid any appearance of bias.
[1] A Rule 3.850 post-conviction motion based on alleged trial judge prejudice is improper where the trial judge's transfer of the case upon learning of the prejudice claim d…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSiegel was convicted by jury of breaking and entering a dwelling with intent to commit grand larceny and assaulting a person therein, and was sentence…
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 Rule 3.850 Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant was found guilty by a jury of breaking and entering a dwelling with intent to commit grand larceny and assaulting a person therein. He was adjudicated guilty and sentenced to twenty years in the state prison. The judgment and sentence were affirmed upon appeal. Siegel v. State, Fla.App.1973, 274 So. 2d 9. Thereafter, the appellant filed a motion pursuant to Rule 3.850, CrPR, 33 F.S.A., for relief from the judgment and sentence. The ground of the pro se motion was that the trial judge may have been prejudiced against the appellant. The trial court denied the motion and this appeal followed.
We affirm for two reasons. First, the facts alleged in the motion do not tend to indicate prejudice against the appellant, but rather indicate that this cause was carefully handled by the trial court in order to avoid any appearance of prejudice in that the original trial judge transferred the case to another judge upon learning that a claim of influence had been made. Second, the matters alleged in the petition do not constitute a proper ground for a motion pursuant to Rule 3.850, CrP. R. The appellant is entitled to only one appeal from the judgment and sentence and that appeal has been made and carefully considered. See State v. Matera, Fla. 1972, 266 So. 2d 661.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pressley v. Louie L. Wainwright, 367 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 1979)…. 2d 633 (Fla.1962). It is, of course, self-evident that our appellate rules provide procedural due process and do not in that sense to any degree deny due process of law. . See, e. g., Lake v. Lake, 103 So. 2d 639, 642 (Fla.1958); Siegel v. State, 289 So. 2d 764 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Frazee v. Frazee, 185 So. 2d 484, 485 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966). . State v. Harris, 136 So. 2d 633 (Fla.1962). . See Florida Admin. Comm’n v. District Court of Appeal, 351 So. 2d 712, 715 (Fla.1977); Shevin ex rel. State v. Public Se…
-
Siegel v. State, 296 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 1974)…Certiorari denied. 289 So. 2d 764. ADKINS, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.…
-
Aesch v. State, 534 So. 2d 921 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Aesch v. State, 516 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Aesch v. State, 500 So. 2d 153 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Siegel v. State, 289 So. 2d 764 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 296 So. 2d 50 (Fla.1974); Palmer v. State, 273 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973).…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Matera, 266 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 1972)
- Savage v. Bell, 274 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)
- Siegel v. State, 274 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)