LUM 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.
Lum Coleman appealed the denial of his motion to set aside a guilty plea and conviction for arson, arguing violations of equal protection and due process. The court affirmed the denial, finding no merit to Coleman's claims that pre-trial arrest and interrogation procedures violated his constitutional rights, particularly since he pleaded guilty with counsel's advice in open court.
The court affirmed the denial of Coleman's motion, holding that the record failed to support any of his grounds for reversal and that even if pre-trial violations had occurred, they were cured by his knowing and voluntary guilty plea entered with counsel's assistance in open court.
“The record before us fails to support any of the grounds urged by appellant for reversal of the order appealed. Furthermore, it is noted that all of the matters of which appellant complains occurred prior to the time he appeared in open court and entered his plea of guilty with the assistance and advice of counsel.”
The court's finding that even if pre-trial violations occurred, they predated the guilty plea and were therefore curable by the knowing and voluntary plea with counsel's assistance.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceColeman was charged with arson and represented by a public defender. He pleaded guilty to the charge with the advice and assistance of counsel and was…
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 Arrest Without Warrant cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant has appealed an order denying his motion for relief filed pursuant to the provisions of Criminal Procedure Rule 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix.
Appellant was charged by an information with the offense of arson. The public defender was appointed to represent him for the purpose of trial. With the advice and assistance of counsel, appellant pleaded *700guilty to the offense with which he was charged whereupon he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment in the state prison.
Within a few months following his adjudication of guilt, appellant filed a motion for an order setting aside his judgment of conviction and sentence pursuant to the provisions of Criminal Procedure Rule 1. From an examination of the record and court minutes, the trial court found that appellant’s motion was frivolous and without merit. The motion was denied and this appeal ensued.
By his brief filed in this court appellant contends that he was denied equal protection and due process of the law. He argues that (1) he was arrested without a warrant and not afforded a preliminary hearing as required by statute; (2) his automobile was seized by the arresting officers without legal cause; (3) he was first arrested without a warrant for two misdemeanors not committed in the presence of the arresting officers; (4) he was interrogated by the police without being offered or afforded the advice of counsel or being advised of his constitutional right against self-incrimination; and, (5) that he was forced to confess commission of the crime with which he was charged by threats, force and coercion exerted upon and against him by the police.
The record before us fails to support any of the grounds urged by appellant for reversal of the order appealed. Furthermore, it is noted that all of the matters of which appellant complains occurred prior to the time he appeared in open court and entered his plea of guilty with the assistance and advice of counsel.
The judgment of conviction and sentence sought to be vacated by this proceeding is presumptively valid and will not be disturbed pursuant to a collateral attack of this kind except upon a clear showing of error.
The order appealed is likewise clothed with a presumption of correctness and will be reversed only upon a clear showing of an abuse of discretion or that it constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law.
Appellant having failed to demonstrate error, 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
-
Plymale v. State, 201 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)…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 appeal, viewed in a light most favorable to the trial…
-
Whitlow v. State, 256 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)…based upon contentions involving the propriety of admission of evidence. Robinson v. State, Fla.App. 1967, 194 So. 2d 29; Miles v. State, Fla. App.1965, 174 So. 2d 576; Childs v. State, Fla.App. 1966, 190 So. 2d 605; Coleman v. State, Fla.App. 1967, 193 So. 2d 699. Furthermore, the plea of guilty, which in effect waived trial on the merits, precludes at this time an attack on the validity of any search or seizure of evidence or admissibility as evidence. (2) Denial of Right to Counsel at “Questioning and Int…
-
State v. Pitts, 241 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)…ersed in part, affirmed in part. JOHNSON, C. J., and SPECTOR, J., concur. . See Barlow v. State, 238 So. 2d 602. (Fla.1970). . Chambers v. State, 117 Fla. 642, 158 So. 153 (1934) ; and Russ v. State, 95 So. 2d 594 (Fla.1957). . Coleman v. State, 193 So. 2d 699 (Fla.App.1st 1967) ; and Harris v. State, 177 So. 2d 543 (Fla.App.3d 1965). . Paul v. State, 177 So. 2d 537 (Fla.App. 3d 1965). . McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 90 S.Ct. 1441, 25 L.Ed.2d 763 (1970), and Parker v. North Carolina, 397 U.S. 790,…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence