Camacho v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Camacho v. State

203 So. 2d 23, 1967 Fla. App. LEXIS 4393

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 18, 1967

DocketNo. 7071

StatusPublished

This text of 203 So. 2d 23 (Camacho 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

Camacho v. State, 203 So. 2d 23, 1967 Fla. App. LEXIS 4393 (Fla. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

SHANNON, Judge.

This is an appeal from an order denying without a hearing a motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.P. I, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix.

Appellant Carlos Camacho was indicted for first-degree murder. After originally pleading not guilty, he subsequently substituted a plea of guilty to second-degree murder and was sentenced to a life term. At the time of his guilty plea he was represented by counsel. As the ground for his postconviction motion he alleged 'that the police illegally extracted a confession from him and that as a result he had no practical alternative to pleading guilty to second-degree murder.

The record shows that appellant himself indicated that he was pleading guilty to second-degree murder voluntarily, after discussion with his counsel and his relatives, and with full understanding that he might receive a life sentence. The record further indicates that there was evidence available, apart from appellant’s confession, sufficient to establish appellant’s guilt. These factors permit the reasonable inference that such evidence, and not the confession, prompted appellant to plead guilty to second-degree murder rather than face a possible death sentence. Appellant’s contention that his guilty plea was induced solely by his confession is insubstantial and insufficient to require a hearing. Childress v. State, Fla.App.1966, 181 So.2d 655; Thompson v. State, Fla.App.1965, 176 So.2d 564, 568; Williams v. State, Fla.App., 174 So.2d 97, 100, appeal dismissed mem., Fla., 179 So.2d 211, cert. denied mem., 1965, 382 U.S. 963, 86 S.Ct. 448, 15 L.Ed.2d 366; Taylor v. State, Fla.App.1964, 169 So. 2d 861, 862.

Accordingly, the order denying appellant’s postconviction motion is affirmed.

Affirmed.

ALLEN, Acting C. J., and PIERCE, J., concur.

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

SHANNON, Judge.

This is an appeal from an order denying without a hearing a motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.P. I, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix.

Appellant Carlos Camacho was indicted for first-degree murder. After originally pleading not guilty, he subsequently substituted a plea of guilty to second-degree murder and was sentenced to a life term. At the time of his guilty plea he was represented by counsel. As the ground for his postconviction motion he alleged 'that the police illegally extracted a confession from him and that as a result he had no practical alternative to pleading guilty to second-degree murder.

The record shows that appellant himself indicated that he was pleading guilty to second-degree murder voluntarily, after discussion with his counsel and his relatives, and with full understanding that he might receive a life sentence. The record further indicates that there was evidence available, apart from appellant’s confession, sufficient to establish appellant’s guilt. These factors permit the reasonable inference that such evidence, and not the confession, prompted appellant to plead guilty to second-degree murder rather than face a possible death sentence. Appellant’s contention that his guilty plea was induced solely by his confession is insubstantial and insufficient to require a hearing. Childress v. State, Fla.App.1966, 181 So.2d 655; Thompson v. State, Fla.App.1965, 176 So.2d 564, 568; Williams v. State, Fla.App., 174 So.2d 97, 100, appeal dismissed mem., Fla., 179 So.2d 211, cert. denied mem., 1965, 382 U.S. 963, 86 S.Ct. 448, 15 L.Ed.2d 366; Taylor v. State, Fla.App.1964, 169 So. 2d 861, 862.

Accordingly, the order denying appellant’s postconviction motion is affirmed.

Affirmed.

ALLEN, Acting C. J., and PIERCE, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 So. 2d 23, 1967 Fla. App. LEXIS 4393, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/camacho-v-state-fladistctapp-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack