Pait v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Pait v. State

188 So. 2d 15, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 5047

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 21, 1966

DocketNo. 65-701

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 188 So. 2d 15 (Pait 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

Pait v. State, 188 So. 2d 15, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 5047 (Fla. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from an order of the trial court denying appellant’s petition for relief under Criminal Procedure Rule 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix, after an evidentiary hearing.

On June 26, 19S7 appellant was found guilty of first degree murder by a jury without recommendation of mercy. Based thereon he was sentenced to death. The Supreme Court reversed, for certain improper remarks by the prosecutor during closing argument. On retrial the appellant withdrew his plea of not guilty and entered a plea of guilty of murder in the first degree, whereupon he was sentenced by the court to life imprisonment.

On November 6, 1964 appellant filed a petition in the trial court under Criminal Procedure Rule 1 seeking to set aside his sentence on the ground that he had not been tried before a jury. That petition was denied. Thereafter appellant filed his present petition under Criminal Procedure Rule 1. The petition was lengthy and set forth numerous grounds. The ground now being relied on was that he was mentally incompetent at the time he pleaded guilty, due to a prior brain concussion and skull fracture. In the trial court the petitioner supported the motion with evidence of certain treatment he had received for the alleged head injury prior to and subsequent to the time in question. Upon an evidentiary hearing the trial judge concluded that contention of the petitioner was without merit, and with reference thereto stated in his order as follows:

“ * * * It is apparent from the record that the defendant entered his Plea of Guilty on the advice of counsel, on the advice of a minister of the gospel who counseled with petitioner, and on the advice of members of his family in the belief that the evidence against the petitioner was so convincing that he would again be found guilty by a jury and that the jury again might not recommend mercy, and that the defendant and his counsel believed that his best hope to escape another death sentence could be to plead guilty and appeal to the mercy of the Court.”

We conclude, as did the able circuit judge, that the withdrawal of the not guilty plea and the entry of a plea of guilty by the appellant was done knowingly upon the advice of experienced counsel of his choice and of others having interest in his welfare, in an effort to avoid the risk of receiving a [17]*17death sentence following another trial, assuming (correctly) that on pleading guilty the death penalty would not be imposed.

Whereupon, no reversible error having been made to appear, the order appealed from is affirmed.

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 of the trial court denying appellant’s petition for relief under Criminal Procedure Rule 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix, after an evidentiary hearing.

On June 26, 19S7 appellant was found guilty of first degree murder by a jury without recommendation of mercy. Based thereon he was sentenced to death. The Supreme Court reversed, for certain improper remarks by the prosecutor during closing argument. On retrial the appellant withdrew his plea of not guilty and entered a plea of guilty of murder in the first degree, whereupon he was sentenced by the court to life imprisonment.

On November 6, 1964 appellant filed a petition in the trial court under Criminal Procedure Rule 1 seeking to set aside his sentence on the ground that he had not been tried before a jury. That petition was denied. Thereafter appellant filed his present petition under Criminal Procedure Rule 1. The petition was lengthy and set forth numerous grounds. The ground now being relied on was that he was mentally incompetent at the time he pleaded guilty, due to a prior brain concussion and skull fracture. In the trial court the petitioner supported the motion with evidence of certain treatment he had received for the alleged head injury prior to and subsequent to the time in question. Upon an evidentiary hearing the trial judge concluded that contention of the petitioner was without merit, and with reference thereto stated in his order as follows:

“ * * * It is apparent from the record that the defendant entered his Plea of Guilty on the advice of counsel, on the advice of a minister of the gospel who counseled with petitioner, and on the advice of members of his family in the belief that the evidence against the petitioner was so convincing that he would again be found guilty by a jury and that the jury again might not recommend mercy, and that the defendant and his counsel believed that his best hope to escape another death sentence could be to plead guilty and appeal to the mercy of the Court.”

We conclude, as did the able circuit judge, that the withdrawal of the not guilty plea and the entry of a plea of guilty by the appellant was done knowingly upon the advice of experienced counsel of his choice and of others having interest in his welfare, in an effort to avoid the risk of receiving a [17]*17death sentence following another trial, assuming (correctly) that on pleading guilty the death penalty would not be imposed.

Whereupon, no reversible error having been made to appear, the order appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

188 So. 2d 15, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 5047, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pait-v-state-fladistctapp-1966.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack