MACEO BERNARD SIMPSON, 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.
Simpson appeals an order denying his motion to vacate a guilty plea conviction, claiming inadequate legal representation. The appellate court affirms, finding that his appointed counsel provided competent representation by advising him to plead guilty after a brief consultation where Simpson admitted the charged facts.
The court affirmed the denial of the motion to vacate, holding that no specific time limit is required for competent counsel to advise a defendant, particularly where the defendant readily admits the charged facts. The trial court's finding that Simpson was represented by competent counsel is presumed to fulfill ethical obligations as an officer of the court.
“This court is aware of just how far the United States Supreme Court has gone to throw the cloak of protection around one accused of committing a crime, but we do not think that even such court has or will attempt to fix the required time limit necessary for a competent attorney to ascertain from an accused whether he is guilty of the charge or not.”
Establishes that no specific time requirement exists for counsel to advise a defendant regarding guilt or innocence
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSimpson was appointed counsel on the day of his arraignment and trial. The attorney consulted with Simpson briefly and, based on Simpson's admission o…
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 Ethical Obligations Of Attorneys cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from an order denying a motion to vacate judgment of conviction and sentence imposed thereon, brought pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix.
The basic ground of the motion was lack of representation. The allegation is made that on the day of arraignment and trial, the court requested a practicing attorney to consult with the defendant and advise him. Said attorney did consult with the defendant for a short while and then recommended that the defendant withdraw his plea of not guilty and enter a plea of guilty.
*186At the hearing on the motion to vacate; the attorney so appointed, testified, inter alia: “Based on what he told me I reached the conclusion that he was guilty and I told him that probably that would be his best way out, to go ahead and plead guilty.”
Defendant contends that his constitutional rights have been violated because the attorney appointed to represent him did not properly do so, and relies upon Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799, and a number of other cases, none of which are controlling in this case.
This court is aware of just how far the United States Supreme Court has gone to throw the cloak of protection around one accused of committing a crime, but we do not think that even such' court has or will attempt to fix the required time limit necessary for a competent attorney to ascertain from an accused whether he is guilty of the charge or not. It can be readily seen that if the accused contends his innocence that it will take the attorney longer to prepare his defense, but, if the accused readily admits the facts as' charged to be true, certainly it does not require any specific time for a lawyer to advise such accused of his rights and to make recommendations as to his plea.
In the instant case, the trial court found that the defendant was represented by competent counsel, who as an officer of the court, is presumed to fulfill his ethical obligation as such, and therefore, the defendant’s contention that he was not represented by counsel is a mere conclusion of the pleáder and not only is not supported by any factual allegations, but the record discloses the same to be an untrue statement of fact and therefore without merit. Dancy v. State, Fla.App., 175 So.2d 208.
The order appealed is affirmed.
WIGGINTON, Acting C. J., and STUR-GIS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McCRAY v. State, 181 So. 2d 729 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)…2d 79 (Fla.App.1st, 1962); Brooks v. State, 176 So. 2d 116 (Fla.App.1st, 1965). . Watson v. State, 169 So. 2d 887 (Fla.App. 3d, 1964). . Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963). . See Simpson v. State, Fla.App.1st, 181 So. 2d 185, December 14, 1965. . State v. Daniels, Fla.App.2d, 178 So. 2d 44, August 27, 1965. . Goforth v. United States, 314 F. 2d 868 (10th Cir., 1963). . Brinegar v. United States, 290 F. 2d 656 (6th Cir., 1961). . United States v. Wight, 176 F. 2d 376…
-
Bailey v. State, 184 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Dancy v. State, 175 So. 2d 208 (Fla.App.1965), Simpson v. State, 181 So. 2d 185 (Fla.App.1966), and Bailey v. State, 173 So. 2d 708 (Fla.App.1965). RAWLS, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.…
-
Baker v. State, 191 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Simpson v. State, 181 So. 2d 185 (Fla.App.1966) and Morrison v. State, 185 So. 2d 193 (Fla.App.1966). RAWLS, Chief Judge, CARROLL, DONALD, and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (U.S. 1963)
- Dancy v. State, 175 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)