Mccall v. State
| Decision Date | 10 February 1939 |
| Citation | 136 Fla. 317,186 So. 510 |
| Parties | McCALL v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Dade County; H. F. Atkinson, Judge.
On motion for recall of mandate and for rehearing.
Motion denied.
For former opinion, see 185 So. 608.
COUNSEL C. A. Avriett and E. C. Rutledge, both of Jasper, for plaintiff in error.
George Couper Gibbs, Atty. Gen., Lawrence A. Truett and Tyrus A Norwood, Asst. Attys. Gen., and G. A. Worley, State Atty., of Miami, for the State.
The plaintiff in error, Franklin Pierce McCall, through his counsel, has presented to us a motion in the form of an Extraordinary Petition for Recall of Mandate heretofore issued in this case and for a rehearing.
In that petition he has set up eighteen (18) numbered paragraphs. The sum total of all the allegations contained in the petition is that this Court in rendering its opinion and judgment filed herein on the 3rd day of January, 1939, overlooked the rule of law that the plaintiff in error had the right, under the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, U.S.C.A., to be represented by counsel at his trial and that such right was in substance denied.
The conditions assumed by the petitioner in his petition to have existed are not shown by the record to have existed, but the contrary is shown.
We have in our opinion, supra, set out in detail what the record shows occurred at and concerning the trial. The record shows affirmatively that when the defendant appeared at the bar of the court with counsel previously appointed to represent him the trial judge asked the defendant and his counsel if they had any motions to present. Counsel replied in effect that they had no motions to present and were ready to proceed. When the State had introduced its evidence before the trial judge, upon being interrogated by his counsel McCall stated that he had entered a plea of guilty to the indictment charging kidnapping to hold for ransom, and he reasserted that such was his plea. He then clearly intelligently and deliberately told in detail every step of his perpetration of the crime charged. He made no contention that he was not guilty of the crime charged in the indictment, nor did he make any contention of any sort that if given all the time of the future he could prepare any defense to the charge then pending against him.
Counsel appointed for him by the Court is recognized by this Court as an able, active and conscientious lawyer of many years of experience in the trial of criminal cases. We recognize the rule laid down in the cases of Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 53 S.Ct. 55, 77 L.Ed. 158, 87 A.L.R. 527, and Johnson v. Zerbst, as Warden, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461, but we...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Whitney v. State, 65-401
...5 Cir., 290 F.2d 252; Snell v. State, 158 Fla. 431, 28 So.2d 863, cert. den. 331 U.S. 830, 67 S.Ct. 1352, 91 L.Ed. 1844; McCall v. State, 136 Fla. 317, 186 So. 510.' As to the fifth reason, the admissibility of the extra-judicial confession, the appellant relies on the United States Supreme......
-
Whitney v. Cochran, 31516
...5 Cir., 290 F.2d 252; Snell v. State, 158 Fla. 431, 28 So.2d 863, cert. den. 331 U.S. 830, 67 S.Ct. 1352, 91 L.Ed. 1844; McCall v. State, 136 Fla. 317, 186 So. 510. There can be no doubt that an accused can knowingly waive constitutional guarantees of confrontation, cross examination, and p......
- Sheldon v. Wilfore
- Mccall v. State