Simpson v. State, 4184

• Decision Date: 12 June 1964
• Docket Number: No. 4184,4184
• Citation: Simpson v. State, 165 So.2d 195 (Fla. App. 1964)
• Parties: Morgan SIMPSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 195

165 So.2d 195

Morgan SIMPSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4184.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 12, 1964.

Lee Roy Horton, Public Defender, Lake Wales, for appellant.

James W. Kynes, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, Robert R. Crittenden, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.

SMITH, Chief Judge.

This is an appeal from an order denying the appellant's motion for post-conviction relief under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, F.S.A ch. 924 Appendix. We affirm.

In 1953 Morgan Simpson was charged with robbery and then after engaging counsel of his own choice he was arraigned, entered a plea of not guilty, and was tried by a jury which found him guilty. His motion for new trial was denied, and he was then adjudged guilty and sentenced to a term of 30 years in the state penitentiary. His conviction was appealed to the Supreme Court and affirmed in Simpson v. State, Fla.1955, 81 So.2d 810.

In 1957 Simpson filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Supreme Court, alleging that his conviction was based upon perjured testimony knowingly and purposely used by the State. The Supreme Court caused a hearing to be held on the matter before the Court's appointed Commissioner, whose report stated that 'there was no testimony submitted to show that the prosecution knowingly used false and perjured testimony to obtain a conviction of the petitioner * * *.' Thereupon, the Supreme Court examined the record and concluded that the Commissioner's findings were fully warranted by the evidence submitted. Simpson was remanded to the custody of the prison officials to serve the remainder of his term. State ex rel. Simpson v. Mayo, Fla.1957, 95 So.2d 424.

In 1963 Simpson filed his motion to vacate the judgment and sentence, alleging the same basic facts and circumstances as those alleged in his 1957 petition for writ of habeas corpus. In addition, he alleged that he was presently insolvent and requested the court to appoint counsel to represent him in presenting to the court the matters alleged in his motion. The trial court denied without a hearing both the motion for appointment of counsel and the motion to vacate the judgment and sentence, stating in effect that Simpson has had the advantage of every legal right which could be afforded to him; that all matters raised in the instant motion have been considered and determined adversely to him; and that he had alleged no basis for further consideration.

After Simpson...