Elvy Rhynes, AKA Jack Rhynes v. Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida

Fifth Circuit

Elvy Rhynes, AKA Jack Rhynes v. Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida

480 F.2d 561, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 9482

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJune 11, 1973

Docket73-1196

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 480 F.2d 561 (Elvy Rhynes, AKA Jack Rhynes v. Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Elvy Rhynes, AKA Jack Rhynes v. Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida, 480 F.2d 561, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 9482 (5th Cir. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The only issue left in this case is whether appellant was sentenced in Florida state court without presence of counsel. The federal District Court denied relief based on the finding of the Florida state court entered in a Rule 1.850, 33 F.S.A., proceeding that appellant was represented by counsel when sentenced. That order was entered by a judge other than the sentencing judge and without an evidentiary hearing. The minutes of the sentencing which are before us do not show, nor are we able to find anything else in the record which shows, the presence of counsel. See Gutierrez v. Estelle, 474 F.2d 899 (CA5, 1973). The State of Florida, while not conceding that either the Rule 1.850 order of the state court, or the federal District Court order relying thereon, is erroneous, eommendably suggests that the interests of justice can be fulfilled only by an evidentiary hearing. We agree.

Vacated and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM:

The only issue left in this case is whether appellant was sentenced in Florida state court without presence of counsel. The federal District Court denied relief based on the finding of the Florida state court entered in a Rule 1.850, 33 F.S.A., proceeding that appellant was represented by counsel when sentenced. That order was entered by a judge other than the sentencing judge and without an evidentiary hearing. The minutes of the sentencing which are before us do not show, nor are we able to find anything else in the record which shows, the presence of counsel. See Gutierrez v. Estelle, 474 F.2d 899 (CA5, 1973). The State of Florida, while not conceding that either the Rule 1.850 order of the state court, or the federal District Court order relying thereon, is erroneous, eommendably suggests that the interests of justice can be fulfilled only by an evidentiary hearing. We agree.

Vacated and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

480 F.2d 561, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 9482, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elvy-rhynes-aka-jack-rhynes-v-louie-l-wainwright-director-division-of-ca5-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack