Marti v. State, 63-806
| Decision Date | 07 April 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 63-806,63-806 |
| Parties | William MARTI, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert L. Koeppel, Public Defender, and W. Eugene Neill, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
James W. Kynes, Jr., Atty. Gen., and Leonard R. Mellon, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before CARROLL, HORTON and HENDRY, JJ.
This appeal is from an order denying appellant's petition for post conviction relief filed pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix.
The appellant's petition was directed to the judgment and sentence entered against him on October 19, 1961, sentencing him to a term of four years and eight months for violation of the Florida Uniform Natcotics Act. Appellant's petition, consisting of some fourteen pages, alleged, in the main, that (1) he was arrested without a warrant and that after his arrest he was not immediately taken before a magistrate; (2) at the time of his arrest he was 'not advised as to his detaintion [sic], no charge being made against him or any bond set;' (3) he was the victim of an 'illegal arrest and confinement;' and (4) he was not granted a speedy trial.
On October 8, 1963, the trial court entered an order denying the petition for relief. The order found, inter alia, that the appellant was represented by the public defender of Dade County at arraignment, trial and sentencing, and that the allegations contained in the petition did not set forth grounds upon which relief could leglly be granted.
Appellant contends that based upon the aforementioned allegations he was entitled to an order invalidating and setting aside his judgment of conviction. With this contention we cannot agree.
While any alleged error may be posed for decision on a direct appeal to an appellate court, the test for granting relief under Rule 1, is whether or no the appellant was deprived of the substance of a fair trial. Cf. Glouser v. United States, 8 Cir., 296 F.2d 853, cert. den. 369 U.S. 825, 82 S.Ct. 840, 7 L.Ed.2d 789. The trial court's order, in effect, found that none of the errors complained of amounted to violations of due process of law and none of them were of the character that would support a collateral attack on the judgment of conviction. The appellant's allegation that he was not taken before a magistrate without unnecessary delay provides no basis for relief under Rule 1 since he failed to show any harm resulting from such alleged unnecessary delay that would have deprived him of a fair trial. See Milton v. Cochrane, Fla.1963, 147 So.2d 137. Likewise, appellant's allegations relating to the legality of his arrest and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reddick v. State, 6551
...constitutional guaranty was violated, but whether the defendant, on the whole record, was denied A fair trial. 4 Thus in Marti v. State, Fla.App.1964, 163 So.2d 506, it was 'While any alleged error may be posed for decision on a direct appeal to an appellate court, the test for granting rel......
-
U.S. v. Nill
... ... -BK-J, which said sum purportedly was the outstanding balance on a loan to the bankrupt by The State Bank of Jacksonville, whereas, in truth and in fact, as CARL JONATHAN NILL well knew, said sum and ... ...
-
Gillyard v. State, 64-340
...Fla.1962, 147 So.2d 137; Byers v. State, Fla.App.1964, 163 So.2d 57; Wooten v. State, Fla.App.1964, 163 So.2d 305; Marti v. State, Fla.App.1964, 163 So.2d 506; Shea v. State, Fla.App.1964, 167 So.2d For the reasons stated the order appealed from is reversed and the cause is remanded for fur......
-
Williams v. State
...(a) Upon arrest, defendant was held eight days in jail before he could make a phone call to his mother. Authority contra: Marti v. State, Fla.App.1964, 163 So.2d 506; Henderson v. State, Fla.1965, 174 So.2d 73; Smith v. State, Fla.App.1964, 168 So.2d (b) At the trial, defendant's guilt was ......