WILKIN LEROY GIBSON, 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 defendant's mere allegation of a coerced guilty plea does not automatically entitle them to an evidentiary hearing without supporting factual allegations.
The defendant appealed the summary denial of his motion to vacate judgment and sentence, arguing his guilty plea was coerced. He sought to vacate only…
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 Concurrent Sentences cases and more on FLexlaw
Wilkin Leroy Gibson appeals the summary denial of his motion to vacate judgment and sentence pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule One (now Rule 1.850, 33 F.S.A.). The only point here asserted is that,
“[t]he trial court erred in summarily denying defendant’s motion alleging that his plea of guilty was coerced since such an allegation per se demands an eviden-tiary hearing.”
Defendant argues that a naked assertion that his guilty plea was coerced will automatically entitle him to an evidentiary hearing unless “the records and files in the case * * * do not conclusively show that the guilty plea was not coerced. * * ” We cannot agree with this backward contention and do, therefore, affirm the trial court decision.
A motion for post-conviction relief should not be scrutinized for technical niceties. However, it is necessary that any contentions be supported by allegations of fact and not be stated as mere conclusions. Swindle v. State, Fla.App.1967, 202 So.2d 132; Crusoe v. State, Fla.App.1966, 183 So. 2d 600. Petitioner has failed to allege the ultimate facts which support his conclusion that he was coerced into pleading guilty. Thus, the allegation is not sufficient to warrant an evidentiary hearing. Lee v. State, Fla.App.1967, 204 So.2d 245; Tolar v. State, Fla.App.1967, 196 So.2d 1.
There is an alternate reason why the trial court was correct in summarily denying the motion. Petitioner is presently serving five concurrent five-year sentences ; yet by his motion he seeks to vacate only one of them. Since he has failed to challenge the validity of the other concurrent sentences, he is not entitled to a hearing on the validity of the challenged sentence. Yates v. State, Fla.App.1967, 199 So.2d 340; Cole v. State, Fla.App.1967, 204 So.2d 923.
Affirmed.
McCAIN and REED, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
West v. State, 249 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)…conclusions and prayers contained in the motion or to justify relief under the post-conviction Rule is insufficient on its face and does not warrant an evidentiary hearing. Bogan v. State, Fla.App.1968, 211 So. 2d 74; Gibson v. State, Fla.App.1968, 213 So. 2d 8; Brumley v. State, Fla.App.1969, 224 So. 2d 447; Ballard v. State, Fla.App.1967, 200 So. 2d 597; Ward v. State, Fla.App.1970, 236 So. 2d 187; see also Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 90 S.Ct 1463, 25 L.Ed.2d 747. West urges to this Court the…
-
Donnie Rogers v. State, 362 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…bring the voluntariness into question. The defendant having failed to allege any such fact, the order appealed is affirmed. See Paige v. State, 282 So. 2d 192 (Fla.2d DCA 1973); Whitlow v. State, 256 So. 2d 48 (Fla.2d DCA 1971); and Gibson v. State, 213 So. 2d 8 (Fla.4th DCA 1968). Affirmed.…
-
Brown v. State, 266 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See: Stone v. State, Fla.App.1967, 201 So. 2d 472; Gibson v. State, Fla.App.1968, 213 So. 2d 8; Cox v. State, Fla.App.1969, 219 So. 2d 762, at 765; Peterson v. State, Fla.App.1970, 237 So. 2d 223.…
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
- Tolar v. State, 196 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)
- Crusoe v. State, 183 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)
- LEE v. State, 204 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)
- Swindle v. State, 202 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Yates v. State, 199 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)
- Roberts v. State, 199 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)
- Desrosiers v. State, 204 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)
- Cole v. State, 204 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)