ALPHONSO WILLIAMS, 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.
Alphonso Williams appealed the trial court's denial of his motion to vacate judgment and sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, raising five grounds for post-conviction relief. The appellate court affirmed the denial, finding each claim either procedurally deficient, relying on rules not in effect at trial, or substantively meritless.
The court affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion, finding that the search and seizure claim was abandoned on direct appeal, the first appearance and preliminary hearing claims were based on rules not in effect at trial, the ineffective assistance claim lacked merit as counsel's subsequent employment did not create a conflict of interest and one week's preparation time was adequate, and summary denial without a hearing was proper under Rule 3.850.
[1] A legal argument not raised on direct appeal is considered abandoned.
[2] A defendant cannot claim prejudice from noncompliance with a rule that was not in effect at the time of the alleged violation.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Under Rule 3.850, F.R.Cr. P., 33 F.S.A., the trial judge may deny a motion without a hearing if the files and records in the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief.”
Establishes the standard for summary denial of a post-conviction motion to vacate.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliams was convicted of robbery and his conviction was affirmed on direct appeal in 1972. He subsequently filed a motion to vacate judgment and sent…
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 Prosecution By Information cases and more on FLexlaw
McCORD, Judge.
This is an appeal from an order of the trial court denying appellant’s motion to vacate judgment and sentence pursuant to Rule 3.850, F.R.Cr.P., 33 F.S.A. Appellant on being convicted of robbery appealed to this court and the conviction was affirmed. See Williams v. State, Fla.App. (1st), 266 So. 2d 685 (1972).
On this present appeal, appellant raises five points on which he contends the trial court erred in denying his motion. First, he contends that he was the victim of an unreasonable search and seizure. This point was raised in the trial and in the assignments of error on his direct appeal but it was not argued and was therefore abandoned. See Spencer v. State, Fla.App. (3rd) 259 So. 2d 512, cert. den., Fla., 267 So. 2d 833.
Second, appellant contends he was not accorded a prompt first appearance as required by Rule 3.130(b)(1) F.R.Cr.P., 33 F.S.A. This rule did not become effective until after affirmance of appellant’s conviction. Also, there is no allegation or indication that appellant was prejudiced by noncompliance with a nonexistent rule.
Third, appellant contends he was denied a preliminary hearing pursuant to Rule 3.131(a) F.R.Cr.P., 33 F.S.A. This rule likewise was not in effect until after affirmance of appellant’s conviction. A similar requirement of Section 901.23, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., was in effect at the time of appellant’s arrest, but a preliminary hearing is not required where the state prosecutes by information (as in this case). See Bradley v. State, Fla.App. (1st) 265 So. 2d 532, cert. den., 411 U.S. 916, 93 S.Ct. 1543, 36 L.Ed.2d 307.
Fourth, appellant contends he was denied effective assistance of counsel. On this point, appellant states his appointed counsel had a conflict of interest in that he was employed as county prosecuting attorney to take office subsequent to appellant’s trial. We do not find that such subsequent employment would constitute a conflict of interest on the part of appellant’s counsel and do not find that appellant’s rights were in any way prejudiced thereby. Appellant further contends under his fourth point that his counsel was appointed one week before trial and, therefore, did not have adequate time to prepare for trial. At no time did appellant or his counsel request a continuance. There is no indication that one week was insufficient time for appellant’s counsel to prepare for trial. See State v. Barton, Fla., 194 So. 2d 241. In addition, the record shows that the trial court made every effort to appoint counsel at an earlier date but was precluded from doing so by appellant’s protestations that he did not want appointed counsel.
Fifth, appellant contends the trial court erred in summarily denying his motion to vacate. Under Rule 3.850, F.R.Cr. P., 33 F.S.A., the trial judge may deny a motion without a hearing if the files and records in the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief. Based upon the record and the contents of appellant’s motion, we find no error in the trial court’s denial of it without hearing.
Affirmed.
RAWLS, C. J., and JOHNSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pitts v. State, 365 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…is motion pursuant to Fla.R. Crim.P. 3.850. We affirm. The record proper clearly refutes the allegations of the motion and, therefore, the order appealed should be affirmed. See: Davis v. State, 277 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Williams v. State, 296 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); Bohn v. State, 354 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). Affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Barton, 194 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 1967)
- Spencer v. State, 267 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 1972)
- Chrysler Credit Corp. v. Rehurek, 267 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 1972)
- Bradley v. Florida, 411 U.S. 916 (U.S. 1973)
- Lafayette Airport Comm'n v. Roy, 411 U.S. 916 (U.S. 1973)
- Bradley v. State, 265 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972)
- Spencer v. State, 259 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- Alphonso Williams v. State, 266 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972)