Childress v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Childress v. State

181 So. 2d 655, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 5807

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 13, 1966

DocketNo. G-430

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 181 So. 2d 655 (Childress 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

Childress v. State, 181 So. 2d 655, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 5807 (Fla. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

JOHNSON, Judge.

The defendant was charged with breaking and entering with intent to commit misdemeanors and felonies in a series of infor-mations containing more than 40 such charges. The defendant was represented by the Public Defender of Escambia County, who was present at the arraignment and sentencing of the defendant. Defendant’s mother was also present and acknowledged that she had full knowledge of the charges filed against her son and agreed to his arraignment and pleas of guilty. The sentencing was on March 6, 1964.fe On May 7, 1965, defendant filed a motion to vacate and set aside the judgments and sentences on the grounds that he was without counsel and that the guilty pleas were obtained by threats and promises.

The court found that the defendant was represented by counsel and that the other allegations and grounds were without merit

From the record available to this court, it appears that the defendant was represented by counsel and that his pleas of guilty were voluntarily made, and it does not appear that the court considered the confessions complained of when sentencing the defendant. This case falls within the ruling of Williams v. State, 174 So.2d 97 (2d DCA,1965) and Turvey v. State, 174 So.2d 609 (1st DCA, 1965). Also, Thompson v. State, 176 So.2d 564 (3rd DCA, 1965).

[656]*656The other grounds raised by the appellant are without merit.

Therefore the order appealed is

Affirmed.

WIGGINTON, Acting C. J., and STURGIS, J., concur.

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

JOHNSON, Judge.

The defendant was charged with breaking and entering with intent to commit misdemeanors and felonies in a series of infor-mations containing more than 40 such charges. The defendant was represented by the Public Defender of Escambia County, who was present at the arraignment and sentencing of the defendant. Defendant’s mother was also present and acknowledged that she had full knowledge of the charges filed against her son and agreed to his arraignment and pleas of guilty. The sentencing was on March 6, 1964.fe On May 7, 1965, defendant filed a motion to vacate and set aside the judgments and sentences on the grounds that he was without counsel and that the guilty pleas were obtained by threats and promises.

The court found that the defendant was represented by counsel and that the other allegations and grounds were without merit

From the record available to this court, it appears that the defendant was represented by counsel and that his pleas of guilty were voluntarily made, and it does not appear that the court considered the confessions complained of when sentencing the defendant. This case falls within the ruling of Williams v. State, 174 So.2d 97 (2d DCA,1965) and Turvey v. State, 174 So.2d 609 (1st DCA, 1965). Also, Thompson v. State, 176 So.2d 564 (3rd DCA, 1965).

[656]*656The other grounds raised by the appellant are without merit.

Therefore the order appealed is

Affirmed.

WIGGINTON, Acting C. J., and STURGIS, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

181 So. 2d 655, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 5807, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/childress-v-state-fladistctapp-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack