Francis v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Francis v. State

168 So. 2d 684

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided November 10, 1964·No. No. 64-168·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant suffered an order denying his petition for relief under Criminal Procedure Rule 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix and appeals to this Court. The petition presented two grounds for relief; (1) No preliminary hearing was held prior to his trial; (2) His privately employed counsel did not competently represent him.

The trial judge correctly denied the petition. The failure to hold a preliminary hearing is not of itself enough to show lack of due process. Wooten v. State, Fla. App.1964, 163 So.2d 305. Furthermore, the mere allegation that defendant’s counsel did not competently represent him is not sufficient for relief under the rule. Wooten v. State, supra; Wilder v. State, Fla.App.1963, 156 So.2d 395.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant suffered an order denying his petition for relief under Criminal Procedure Rule 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix and appeals to this Court. The petition presented two grounds for relief; (1) No preliminary hearing was held prior to his trial; (2) His privately employed counsel did not competently represent him.

The trial judge correctly denied the petition. The failure to hold a preliminary hearing is not of itself enough to show lack of due process. Wooten v. State, Fla. App.1964, 163 So.2d 305. Furthermore, the mere allegation that defendant’s counsel did not competently represent him is not sufficient for relief under the rule. Wooten v. State, supra; Wilder v. State, Fla.App.1963, 156 So.2d 395.

Affirmed.

Francis v. State, 168 So. 2d 684 (Fla. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

168 So. 2d 684 (Francis v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related