PAUL CLIFFORD HILL, 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.
The court held that the defendant was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his post-conviction relief allegations.
The defendant was convicted of armed robbery and his prior appeal affirming the conviction was based solely on the sufficiency of the evidence. He lat…
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 Right To Confrontation cases and more on FLexlaw
MANN, Chief Judge.
This appeal is taken from summary denial of a motion for post-conviction relief. We hold that Hill was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his allegations.
Hill was convicted of armed robbery in Hillsborough County and appealed. This court affirmed on authority of Jones v. State, Fla.App.2d 1961, 128 So. 2d 754. The record before us at that time presented solely the question of sufficiency of the evidence of Hill’s identity as the robber. He claims to have been in Illinois at the time of the crime. After our affirmance, Hill filed a petition for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 3.850, CrPR, 33 F.S. A., adequately asserting a violation of Dickey v. Florida1 in the State’s failure to bring him speedily to trial, a deprivation of the effective assistance of counsel and violations of his right to confrontation of witnesses.
The case bears some resemblance to Ross v. State,2 in which we found that a prior appeal was inadequately argued by appointed appellate counsel. No cases were cited to this court on the prior appeal in this cause, but Hill’s case differs from Ross’s in one significant respect. Although we by no means preclude the right to assert ineffective appellate counsel, the matters which Hill asserts were not developed in the record in both the trial court and this court, and may be more appropriately developed upon evidentiary hearing before the trial judge.3
Reversed and remanded.
HOBSON and BOARDMAN, JJ., concur. . 1970, 398 U.S. 30, 90 S.Ct. 1564, 26 L.Ed.2d 26.
. Fla.App.2d 1973, 287 So. 2d 372.
.West v. Louisiana (5th Cir. 1973), 478 F. 2d 1026, presently pending on rehearing en banc.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gunn v. State, 378 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)…of counsel at trial or plea is an issue appropriate for collateral relief. Payne v. State, 362 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Robinson v. State, 352 So. 2d 936 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Chambers v. State, 337 So. 2d 845 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); Hill v. State, 297 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); Lay v. State, 224 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). This cause, therefore, is remanded to the trial court under a temporary relinquishment of jurisdiction, for forty-five days, with instructions (a) to attach that portion of the c…
Authorities Cited
- Dickey v. Florida, 398 U.S. 30 (U.S. 1970)
- Limmie West, III v. State OF La., 478 F.2d 1026 (5th Cir. 1973)
- Jones v. State, 128 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)
- Ross v. State, 287 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)