Archer v. State
| Decision Date | 01 July 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 4598,4598 |
| Citation | 166 So.2d 163 |
| Parties | Harold ARCHER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Walter R. Talley, Public Defender, Brandenton, for appellant.
James W. Kynes, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Robert R. Crittenden, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.
Harold Archer appeals from an order denying his motion for relief pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1 F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix. We reverse.
In 1960 Archer was arraigned on a charge of burglary to which he entered a plea of guilty without benefit of counsel, after which the record shows: 'Whereupon, the court asked the defendant if he desired to consult an attorney before entering a plea and the defendant stated that he did not desire counsel and that he was guilty of the charge.' The court then entered judgment and sentence. In May 1963 Archer filed a motion for relief under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1. This motion was denied on July 8, 1963 without a hearing. Archer filed a second motion in July 1963 which was denied October 30, 1963 without a hearing upon the ground that the matter had been previously adjudged. By this appeal we review the latter order.
In the second motion Archer alleges he lacked funds to employ an attorney when he entered his plea of guilty and he was not made aware of the existence of any right to representation absent such funds; that he entered his guilty plea without the aid of counsel and that there was no waiver of his right to have counsel furnished since he had no knowledge of such a right, the court having failed to advise him of its existence. This second motion also set forth allegations of fact which, if true, would entitle the movant to have the judgment and sentence vacated and set aside. See King v. State, Fla.App.1963, 157 So.2d 440.
There remains for our determination, therefore, only the question as to whether or not the court could property deny the second motion on the ground that the matter had been previously adjudicated.
The Florida Supreme Court has said that the decisions of the federal courts should be used 'as a guide to the proper application * * * of the Florida Rule' since Florida Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1 is adopted almost verbatim from Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255, of the federal statutes. Roy v. Wainwright, Fla.1963, 151 So.2d 825. Pursuant to this directive this court notes that the United States Supreme Court in Sanders v. United States, 1963, 373 U.S. 1, 83 S.Ct. 1068, 10 L.Ed.2d 148, has set out guidelines in dealing with 'successive motions on grounds previously heard and determined.'
The Sanders case, supra, stresses the point that a prisoner invoking § 2255 enjoys the same rights as does an applicant for habeas corpus and that any substantial procedural hurdles making his § 2255 remedy any less swift or effective than that of habeas corpus would engender grave constitutional doubts.
The court goes on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McCrae v. State
...2d DCA 1971); Piehl v. State, 173 So.2d 723 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965), quashed on other grounds, 184 So.2d 417 (Fla.1966); Archer v. State, 166 So.2d 163 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964). As the foregoing discussion demonstrates, if the summary denial in the instant case was based upon a determination that the......
-
Mason v. State
...v. State, Fla.App. 163 So.2d 527; Phillips v. State, Fla.App. 164 So.2d 858; Holmes v. State, Fla.App., 165 So.2d 433; Archer v. State, Fla.App., 166 So.2d 163; Carver v. State, Fla.App., 171 So.2d 898. See also the opinion of the Third District Court of Appeal in Furman v. State, 162 So.2d......
-
State v. Bolyea
...federal precedent interpreting 28 U.S.C. § 2255 as persuasive authority in construing Rule 3.850. Id. Accord Archer v. State, 166 So.2d 163, 164 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964). The United States Supreme Court prior to Roy clearly had ruled that the remedy afforded by 28 U.S.C. § 2255 was at least as br......
-
Grant v. State, 68--479
...at an evidentiary hearing, and concur for that reason. The record and briefs before us are not clear on that point. See Archer v. State, Fla.App.1964, 166 So.2d 163. ...