Carey v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Carey v. State

176 So. 2d 603, 1965 Fla. App. LEXIS 4322

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 29, 1965

DocketNo. 64-822

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 176 So. 2d 603 (Carey 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

Carey v. State, 176 So. 2d 603, 1965 Fla. App. LEXIS 4322 (Fla. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from an order denying a petition for relief under Criminal Rule 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix. The appellant was indicted by a grand jury and charged with the crime of rape. One week before he was arraigned, counsel was appointed for him by the court. At arraignment he pleaded not guilty. On the trial, at which he had the assistance of counsel, he was found guilty by a jury which recommended mercy. The court adjudged him guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment.

Petitioner’s subsequent motion for relief under Criminal Rule 1 is predicated on the sole ground that he was not given a preliminary hearing. The trial judge conducted a full evidentiary hearing, at which the appellant was present. In a comprehensive order the trial judge outlined the steps in the case and concluded by holding that the petition made no sufficient showing for relief and entered an order of denial. On this appeal from that order we conclude that the able trial judge was eminently correct in so holding. No prejudice was shown to have resulted to the defendant because of the absence of a preliminary hearing. The steps in the cause were not delayed, nor were they premature or hastened. No other reason is suggested for determining that the absence of a preliminary hearing caused the orderly prosecution to be lacking in due process. See Wooten v. State, Fla.App.1964, 163 So.2d 305; Hoffman v. State, Fla.App.1964, 169 So.2d 38.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from an order denying a petition for relief under Criminal Rule 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix. The appellant was indicted by a grand jury and charged with the crime of rape. One week before he was arraigned, counsel was appointed for him by the court. At arraignment he pleaded not guilty. On the trial, at which he had the assistance of counsel, he was found guilty by a jury which recommended mercy. The court adjudged him guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment.

Petitioner’s subsequent motion for relief under Criminal Rule 1 is predicated on the sole ground that he was not given a preliminary hearing. The trial judge conducted a full evidentiary hearing, at which the appellant was present. In a comprehensive order the trial judge outlined the steps in the case and concluded by holding that the petition made no sufficient showing for relief and entered an order of denial. On this appeal from that order we conclude that the able trial judge was eminently correct in so holding. No prejudice was shown to have resulted to the defendant because of the absence of a preliminary hearing. The steps in the cause were not delayed, nor were they premature or hastened. No other reason is suggested for determining that the absence of a preliminary hearing caused the orderly prosecution to be lacking in due process. See Wooten v. State, Fla.App.1964, 163 So.2d 305; Hoffman v. State, Fla.App.1964, 169 So.2d 38.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

176 So. 2d 603, 1965 Fla. App. LEXIS 4322, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carey-v-state-fladistctapp-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack