La Rocca v. State
| Decision Date | 20 March 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 3373,3373 |
| Citation | 151 So.2d 64 |
| Parties | Thomas LA ROCCA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
John D. Menas and W. Ted Whidden, Tampa, for appellant.
Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Robert R. Crittenden, Asst. Atty, Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.
Thomas La Rocca was adjudged guilty on his plea of guilty and sentenced to serve a term of from six months to five years in the State Prison for the crime of breaking and entering. The final judgment was entered on March 26, 1962. On May 18, 1962, he filed his Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis, which was denied. He now appeals from the order denying the Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis. In his Notice of Appeal, he also recites that he appeals from the final judgment of March 26th. However, his Assignments of Error and Points on Appeal presented to this court are confined to the denial of the Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis. We affirm.
At a hearing on the question of the sufficiency of the Petition, the court denied the Petition without the taking of testimony. The effect is to say that, while the facts alleged in the Petition and supporting affidavit are taken to be true, they are not sufficient in law to effect an annulment of the judgment. The Petition with supporting affidavit of the petitioner alleges that La Rocca, with others, was arrested by police officers of the City of Tampa, held in the Police Station for three days without any outside communication with friends, relatives or attorney, frequently interrogated, and told that if he would cooperate and confess he would be charged with breaking and entering and grand larceny, and if not, he would be further charged with burglary and other offenses. He was further told that if he confessed and pleaded guilty he would be assured a probation and the wife of one of his co-defendants and her son would not be charged with any offense. The three defendants were brought together, at which time one of the co-defendants informed La Rocca that if he did not confess, then the co-defendant would see to it that La Rocca was sent to prison. On the assurances of the police officers, in addition to the threat of the co-defendant, and with his feeling of sympathy toward the co-defendant's wife and son, he agreed to confess to the charges. In his confession he gave an account of the story as he was told to tell by the co-defendant. Relying on the promises, with fear of the threats of the co-defendant, and with the feeling of sympathy for the co-defendant's wife and son, he subsequently entered a plea of guilty. He informed his attorney of these matters prior to the entry of the plea of guilty. La Rocca seriously believed that he would be placed on probation. He further alleges that his confession and plea were not voluntary acts, but were acts made in reliance upon the promises, fear of imprisonment and were induced under strong feelings of sympathy; and that he thought that he could rely upon the honor and integrity of public officials who made the promises to him. He concluded by further alleging that he had nothing to do with the crimes to which he pleaded guilty; that he is ignorant, unschooled and inexperienced; and that the incriminating statements elicited from him are inadmissible because they were obtained during a period of unlawful detention.
The record here establishes the fact that La Rocca was arrested on September 18, 1961. On September 27, 1961, the State Attorney filed an Information against him and others, charging them in two separate counts with the crimes of breaking and entering and grand larceny. On October 9, 1961, his attorneys filed their formal appearance as attorneys-of-record for La Rocca; and on the same day, upon arraignment with counsel, La Rocca entered a plea of not guilty. His case was set for trial on December 14, 1961. On March 7, 1962, La Rocca, present with his counsel, withdrew his plea of not guilty and entered a plea of guilty to the first count charging breaking and entering. On motion of the State Attorney, the court transferred the second count of the Information to the absentee docket. The court then entered judgment on the plea of guilty, and, on March 26, 1962, pronounced the sentence.
In order to have warranted the granting of the writ of error coram nobis, the facts shown by the petition and supporting affidavit must be such that, had they been known to the court prior to the entry of judgment, such facts would have prevented the judgment that was rendered. It is necessary that such facts, though existing at the time, were unknown to the court when the judgment was rendered and were not made known to the court because of actual dominating fraud, duress or other unlawful means actually exerted by some one not in privity with the petitioner or counsel, thereby preventing disclosure to the court in due season. The question of granting the writ rests in the sound judicial discretion of the trial court. The court should look to the reasonableness of the allegations of the petition and to the existence of the probability of the truth thereof. If a plea of guilty were rendered under...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Dixon, 7173
...v. State, Fla.App.1964, 166 So.2d 503; Russ v. State, Fla.1957, 95 So.2d 594; Fiske v. State, Fla.App.1958, 107 So.2d 745; LaRocca v. State, Fla.App.1963, 151 So.2d 64, and Ard v. State, Fla.1959, 108 So.2d 42. This brings us to the device finally employed by the trial Court to adjudicate t......
-
Enos v. State
...whether the plea was voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently entered.' Blake v. State, Fla.App.1965, 171 So.2d 207, and LaRocca v. State, Fla.App.1963, 151 So.2d 64, require the motion but they were decided prior to Boykin v. Alabama, supra, which is the major and fundamental authority on ......
-
Grant v. State, 4885
...Fla. 642, 158 So. 153; Pike v. State, 1931, 103 Fla. 594, 139 So. 196; Lamb v. State, 1926, 91 Fla. 396, 107 So. 535, and La Rocca v. State, Fla.App.1963, 151 So.2d 64. The brief filed for appellant in this cause apparently abandons that issue raised in the motion which the lower court view......
-
Stovall v. State
...will not support an appeal based upon an asserted improvident plea. Blake v. State, Fla.App.1965, 171 So.2d 207; La Rocca v. State, Fla.App.1963, 151 So.2d 64, 66-67. A plea of nolo contendere is construed for all practical purposes as a plea of guilty. Russell v. State, Fla.App.1970, 233 S......