NORRIS EPPS, 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.
The court affirmed the denial of a post-conviction motion to vacate a robbery conviction, holding that the failure to request separate counsel at trial waives any constitutional objection to joint representation.
Where no objection is raised at trial to a single attorney representing multiple codefendants, no constitutional error is shown.
[1] Failure to object at trial to joint representation of multiple codefendants by a single attorney waives any constitutional objection to such representation on post-convic…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was convicted along with two companions of robbing a Standard Oil station in Marion County, Florida on July 25, 1967. His conviction was aff…
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 Identification cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant seeks reversal of a lower court order denying his post-conviction motion to vacate judgment and sentence filed under Rule 1.850.
Appellant was convicted, along with two companions, of robbing a Standard Oil station just off the interstate highway in Marion County, Florida, on July 25, 1967. His conviction, along with that of his two companions, was reviewed by this court on direct appeal and affirmed on April 10, 1969. See Avis v. State, Fla.App., 221 So.2d 235.
In his motion to vacate, appellant asserts several grounds relating to the sufficiency of the evidence on the question of identification. These questions were considered and rejected by this court as being without merit on the direct appeal. The only new claim asserted in the motion not heretofore considered by the court relates to the court’s failure to provide separate counsel for appellant at the trial. In reviewing the averments contained in the motion to vacate considered by the trial court, we fail to find that this claim was presented to the trial judge for his consideration. Nothing in the motion indicates that a request for separate counsel was' made to the trial court nor that there were any objections interposed to the representation of appellant and his codefendants by one attorney. We have held that where no objection was raised at the trial as to the appointment of a single attorney to represent two or more codefendants, no constitutional error is shown. Rogers v. State, 212 So.2d 367 (Fla.App.1968); and Belton v. State, 211 So.2d 238 (Fla.App.1968).
Affirmed.
CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Belton v. State, 211 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- AVIS v. State, 221 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969)
- Rogers v. State, 212 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968)