Crusoe v. State

Citation239 So.2d 147
Decision Date11 September 1970
Docket NumberNo. 70--327,70--327
PartiesHubert Robert CRUSOE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)

Lee R. Horton, Public Defender, and Robert R. Crittenden, Asst. Public Defender, Winter Haven, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Morton J. Hanlon, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.

PIERCE, Judge.

Appellant Hubert Robert Crusoe appeals to this Court from an order denying his motion to vacate filed under CrPR 1.850, 33 F.S.A.

By separate informations, Crusoe was charged with uttering and passing four forged bank checks. Attended by Court-appointed counsel, Crusoe appeared in open Court on June 5, 1964 and withdrew pleas of not guilty previously entered to the informations and in lieu thereof pleaded guilty to all four charges, receiving a concurrent sentence to the State Prison.

On April 9, 1970, he filed a post-conviction petition in the trial Court, seeking to have such sentences declared void. As frequently occurs, the petition is rambling and in large part incoherent, but as we construe it his contention is that at the time of commission of the acts constituting the basis of the prosecution, namely, the passing of the forged checks, he was not legally competent to commit the offenses due to 'involuntary drunkenness' (whatever that is); that his condition rendered him unable to entertain the requisite intent to defraud required by law to make out the offenses charged; and that when he appeared in Court to change his pleas to guilty 'he did not know that under Florida law he was not responsible for these wrongful acts'.

On April 10, 1970, the trial Judge entered order denying the petition, reciting that on five previous occasions subsequent to entry of sentence Crusoe had been before that Court on various motions, either to dismiss the charges, or to mitigate the sentences, or to vacate the sentences, all of which had been denied, and that at least one of the orders of denial has been appealed and affirmed by this Court. It does not distinctly appear from the trial Judge's order of April 10, 1970, that any of Crusoe's previous motions contained the identical ground set forth in his current motion, so that the instant order cannot be summarily upheld because of previous motions filed and adversely ruled upon.

However, the order appealed from must be affirmed because the motion on its face shows that Crusoe pleaded guilty in open Court in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Linehan v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • August 29, 1985
    ...(possession of methaqualudes); Williams v. State, 250 So.2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971) (violence while resisting arrest); Crusoe v. State, 239 So.2d 147 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970) (passing forged bank As noted above, voluntary intoxication has been recognized in this state for more than ninety years as ......
  • Kelley v. State, 97-03370
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • October 16, 1998
    ...ordered were present at appellant's place of business. By pleading guilty, he waived any issue as to his guilt. See Crusoe v. State, 239 So.2d 147 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970). It is not necessary that the State offer evidence of appellant's actual involvement in the theft of the vehicles for which r......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT