Amaral v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Amaral v. State

171 So. 2d 549

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 9, 1965

DocketNo. 64-613

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 171 So. 2d 549 (Amaral v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Amaral v. State, 171 So. 2d 549 (Fla. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks reversal of an order denying, without formal hearing, his motion for relief under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, F.S.A. ch. 924, Appendix. The appellant was convicted of rape in Dade County and a life sentence was imposed in July of 1958. Having reviewed the record and briefs we conclude, as did the able trial judge, that the petition was lacking in sufficiency to call for formal hearing and that no error was committed in denying the petition. Appellant’s contention that he had incompetent representation by an appointed attorney is refuted by the record which discloses that he disclaimed insolvency and was represented by an attorney of his own choice. His trial with others without severance was a matter within the discretion [550]*550of the court, and his motion did not show abuse thereof. Appellant’s allegations of delay in being brought before a magistrate and of perjury by a prosecution witness were insufficient to state grounds for relief under Criminal Procedure Rule 1. Byers v. State, Fla.App.1964, 163 So.2d 57. Accordingly, the order appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks reversal of an order denying, without formal hearing, his motion for relief under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, F.S.A. ch. 924, Appendix. The appellant was convicted of rape in Dade County and a life sentence was imposed in July of 1958. Having reviewed the record and briefs we conclude, as did the able trial judge, that the petition was lacking in sufficiency to call for formal hearing and that no error was committed in denying the petition. Appellant’s contention that he had incompetent representation by an appointed attorney is refuted by the record which discloses that he disclaimed insolvency and was represented by an attorney of his own choice. His trial with others without severance was a matter within the discretion [550]*550of the court, and his motion did not show abuse thereof. Appellant’s allegations of delay in being brought before a magistrate and of perjury by a prosecution witness were insufficient to state grounds for relief under Criminal Procedure Rule 1. Byers v. State, Fla.App.1964, 163 So.2d 57. Accordingly, the order appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

171 So. 2d 549, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amaral-v-state-fladistctapp-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack