ARTHUR LEE HAMILTON, 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.
A voluntary and understanding guilty plea is conclusive and waives all non-jurisdictional defects in prior proceedings.
Appellant, a state prisoner, pleaded guilty to murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment. He sought habeas corpus relief, alleging various procedu…
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 Waiver Of Non-Jurisdictional Defects cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Appellant, a Florida state prisoner represented by court appointed counsel, was sentenced to life imprisonment in 1962 on a plea of guilty to a charge of murder. His petition for habeas corpus was denied without an evidentiary hearing in the District Court.
His contentions were that he was held incommunicado for eleven days; that his counsel was inadequate and incompetent; that he was arrested without a warrant; and that he was not taken before a magistrate. There is no allegation whatever to connect these charges with the decision to plead guilty. We held in Busby v. Holman, 5 Cir., 1966, 356 F. 2d 75, 77, that:
“ * * * the plea, if voluntarily and understandingly made, is conclusive as to the defendant’s guilt, admitting all the facts charged and waiving all non-jurisdietional defects in the prior proceedings against him.”
See also Broxson v. Wainwright, 5 Cir., 1967, 372 F. 2d 944. Thus relief to appellant is precluded by his plea absent, as here, an allegation that the plea of guilty was involuntary.
Appellant’s only claim in this respect is contained in his brief in this court: That his counsel threatened him with the electric chair if he did not plead guilty. We construe this bare statement to mean that counsel advised him of the possibility that he could receive the death sentence. This, of course, was no more than what a competent lawyer would do in canvass ing the alternatives available to a defendant. See Cooper v. Holman, 5 Cir., 1966, 356 F. 2d 82, 85. There is no merit in the petition.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Huguenot v. State, 230 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)
-
Hamilton v. State, 219 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969)
-
Zales v. Henderson, 433 F.2d 20 (5th Cir. 1970)
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
- Busby v. Holman, 356 F.2d 75 (5th Cir. 1966)
- Cooper v. Holman, 356 F.2d 82 (5th Cir. 1966)
- Broxson v. Louie L. Wainwright, 372 F.2d 944 (5th Cir. 1967)