Fulford v. State

343 So. 2d 917, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 15515
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMarch 15, 1977
DocketNo. 75-1850
StatusPublished

This text of 343 So. 2d 917 (Fulford 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
Fulford v. State, 343 So. 2d 917, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 15515 (Fla. Ct. App. 1977).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered in 1954 finding the appellant guilty of assault with intent to commit manslaughter. Appellant was found guilty by a jury, adjudicated guilty and sentenced to ten years in the state prison.1 He has served his sentence and has been released. Nevertheless, the office of the Public Defender filed in this court. a petition for habeas corpus on his behalf wherein it was alleged that he was being confined in Louisiana State Prison, serving a life sentence for murder and that because of the Florida sentence, he has been classified as a third offender and, therefore, the Florida conviction constitutes a “burden” or “disability.” See Carafas v. La Vallee, 391 U.S. 234, 88 S.Ct. 1556, 20. L.Ed.2d 554 (1968).

Out of an abundance of caution and because of the allegations of the petition, this court treated the petition as a delayed appeal pursuant to Baggett v. Wainwright, 229 So.2d 239 (Fla.1969). Briefs have been filed and arguments heard. Appellant has been totally unable to substantiate by the record any of the claims made in his petition now considered as a direct appeal. The public defender takes the position that because of the lapse of time (23 years), the appellant is unable to produce a proper record and, therefore, a new trial must be granted. We specifically reject this proposition and point out (1) that the lapse of time is not shown to be' because of fault of the State, and (2) a new trial would be tantamount to a reversal because the possibility of finding the witnesses after this delay is so small as to be non-existent.

Thereupon, the judgment and sentence are affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Carafas v. LaVallee
391 U.S. 234 (Supreme Court, 1968)
Baggett v. Wainwright
229 So. 2d 239 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1969)
Fulford v. State
311 So. 2d 203 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1975)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
343 So. 2d 917, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 15515, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fulford-v-state-fladistctapp-1977.