Cole v. State
| Decision Date | 16 March 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 64-395,64-395 |
| Citation | 172 So.2d 607 |
| Parties | Ernest COLE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Miller & Russell, Miami, and Louis Glazer, Miami Beach, for appellant.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Arden Siegendorf, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before BARKDULL, C. J., and CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.
Appellant was charged with the crime of robbery. At arraignment he entered a plea of not guilty; later he changed his plea to that of guilty and waived jury trial. The trial court adjudged him guilty and sentenced him to a term of eight years in the state penitentiary.
This appeal is from the judgment and sentence entered by the criminal court of record pursuant to the defendant's plea of guilty. 1 The grounds relied upon for reversal are that the defendant was denied adequate representation by counsel in that the Public Defender who had been appointed to represent him had assigned two different assistant public defenders to handle his case. One of these assistants appeared with him at arraignment and conferred with him at length in preparation of his defense. The other assistant entered the case immediately prior to the time his case was called for trial. Appellant argues that this substitution of assistants deprived him of representation by his counsel, and that he was not given an opportunity to secure counsel of his own choice.
The record before us shows that the defendant was arraigned on February 27, 1964, pleaded not guilty and waived jury trial through his attorney, James S. Nasella, Assistant Public Defender. The record further shows that on April 29, 1964 the defendant, through Marco Loffredo, Assistant Public Defender, changed his plea of not guilty to that of guilty. He was adjudged guilty and sentenced the same day. There is no showing in the record that the defendant objected to his representation by a different assistant public defender, nor is there any showing that there was a request for a continuance.
The meager record before us does not present the facts on which any of the alleged errors are predicated. In the absence of such showing a presumption arises that the trial court acted properly. 2 Unless an assignment of error is supported by the record it will not be considered on appeal.
Our careful examination of the record on appeal and consideration of the points of law presented by the appellant's brief leads us to the conclusion that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bankston v. State, 72--383
...does not reveal that appellant objected to being represented by counsel, or requested other counsel or a continuance; Cole v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 607; Clayton v. State, Fla.App.1966, 188 So.2d Success is not the measure of counsel's effectivenss, and mere errors of judgment as di......
-
Bartz v. Wainwright, 71-1661 Summary Calendar.
...in response to a request for a motion to vacate filed in July of 1970. 10 Bartz v. Florida, 200 So.2d 204 (Fla. App.1967). 11 172 So.2d 607 (Fla.App.1965). 12 292 F.2d 483 (1st Cir. 13 181 So.2d 739 (Fla.App.1966). 14 170 So.2d 594 (Fla.App.1965). 15 In Thomas v. Decker, 434 F.2d 1033 (5th ......
-
Bartz v. State
...Atty.Gen., Tallahassee, and William D. Roth, Asst.Atty.Gen., Lakeland, for appellee. PER CURIAM. Affirmed upon authority of Cole v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 607; Pitts v. State, Fla.App.1966, 181 So.2d 739; Dickinson v. State, Fla.App.1965, 170 So.2d 594, and Domenica v. United States......
-
Clayton v. State
...record, which shows no objection made by the defendant to his counsel or request for other counsel or for continuance. See Cole v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 607. No reversible error having been made to appear, the judgments appealed from are ...