ROSSIE D. COLEMAN, 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.
Coleman appealed the denial of his motion for relief from conviction, arguing he was denied the right to counsel. The court affirmed the denial, holding that Coleman failed to allege indigency as required and had filed successive identical motions that the trial court was not obligated to entertain.
Coleman was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing because his motion lacked the indispensable allegation and proof of indigency required under Gideon v. Wainwright, and the trial court properly refused to entertain successive motions seeking identical relief on essentially the same grounds.
“Allegation and proof of indigency is an indispensable prerequisite to relief from a judgment of conviction on the ground that the petitioner was unlawfully denied the right to counsel.”
Establishes the fundamental requirement that Coleman failed to meet in his motion for relief.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceColeman filed a motion for relief from his conviction claiming he was denied the assistance of counsel. At his arraignment, he was asked whether he ha…
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 Successive Motions For Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant has appealed an order entered by the Court of Record of Escambia County denying his motion for relief filed pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix. The sole point on appeal *715■challenges the action of the trial court in denying appellant’s motion for relief without affording him an evidentiary hearing thereon as permitted by the rule.
An examination of the motion filed by appellant reveals an absence of any allegation to the effect that at the time of his arrest and trial he was indigent and unable to procure the services of counsel. Allegation and proof of indigency is an indispensable prerequisite to relief from a judgment of conviction on the ground that the petitioner was unlawfully denied the right to counsel.1 The record of the court minutes discloses that at the time of his arraignment appellant was asked whether he had or desired counsel and replied that he was without counsel and did not desire the same. This record is refuted only by the unsupported conclusion stated in appellant’s motion that at the time of his trial he was denied equal protection of the law in that he was deprived of the assistance of counsel to represent him.
In the order appealed the trial court found from the record of the cause that motions for relief similar to the one filed in this case were filed by appellant on June 4, 1963, October 24, 1963, January 2, 1964, and January 8, 1964, all of which were duly considered by the court and denied. The order denying the last motion filed by appellant was appealed to and affirmed by this court. The order appealed comes to this court with a presumption of correctness, and there is nothing in the record on appeal to challenge its verity. The trial court is not required to entertain successive motions by the same party seeking the same relief on essentially the same grounds.2
It appears that appellant’s principal contention is predicated on the assumption that because his codefendant, Henry Mason, was held to be entitled to an eviden-tiary hearing on the motion for relief filed by him,3 appellant should likewise be entitled to a similar hearing. The factual allegations contained in the motion filed in the Mason case are totally different from those contained in the motion filed by appellant herein, so the Mason decision .cannot be relied on as precedent to support appellant’s position here.
The order appealed is affirmed.
RAWLS, C. J., and WIGGINTON, and CARROLL, DONALD K., JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McCRAE v. State, 437 So. 2d 1388 (Fla. 1983)…4 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Neal v. State, 349 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Mitchell v. State, 203 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967), cert. denied, 210 So. 2d 224 (Fla.), cert. denied, 392 U.S. 913, 88 S.Ct. 2073, 20 L.Ed.2d 1371 (1968); Coleman v. State, 183 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966). A “second or successive motion for similar relief,” as used in Rule 3.850 has thus been interpreted to mean a motion stating substantially the same grounds as a previous motion attacking the same conviction or sentence under the…
-
Plymale v. State, 201 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)…ppellant’s testimony, the trial court denied the relief sought. This order of denial is now before us for review. We affirm. The action of the trial court arrived in this court with a presumption of correctness. See: Coleman v. State, Fla.App.1966, 183 So. 2d 714; Coleman v. State, Fla.App.1967, 193 So. 2d 699. It is incumbent upon the appellant to demonstrate error. See: San Fratello v. State, Fla.App.1963, 154 So. 2d 327; Brown v. State, Fla. App.1966, 192 So. 2d 794. If the evidence in the record on appea…
-
Cameron v. State, 196 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)…s not required to entertain a second or successive motion for relief when a prior motion for similar relief, based on substantially the same grounds, has been denied. Boone v. State, Fla.App.1966, 183 So. 2d 869; and Coleman v. State, Fla.App. 1966, 183 So. 2d 714. Appellant’s second motion contains substantially the same grounds as were contained in his first motion. Although we are not required to consider this second motion, we will make some short comment about the allegations contained therein. The mere…
Previewing 3 of 6 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)
- Mason v. State, 176 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 1965)