Smith v. State, 64-508
Decision Date | 22 June 1965 |
Docket Number | No. 64-508,64-508 |
Citation | 176 So.2d 383 |
Parties | Willie Thomas SMITH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Willie Thomas Smith, in pro. per.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Arden M. Siegendorf, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before BARKDULL, C. J., and TILLMAN PEARSON and SWANN, JJ.
The appellant was charged in a two-count information with breaking and entering a dwelling and with grand larceny. Subsequent to a non-jury trial on a plea of not guilty, the appellant was found guilty and sentenced to four years in the State penitentiary.
On March 16, 1964, he filed an unlabeled paper which the trial court treated as a petition to vacate under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix. Said document alleges that the appellant was deprived of a fair trial, but fails to allege any grounds to support the allegation of deprivation of fair trial. The petition was summarily denied by the trial court. Thereafter appellant filed a so-called writ of habeas corpus, which has been treated as a notice of appeal.
We affirm. It has long been the rule in habeas corpus proceedings that allegations must state facts, not conclusions, which demonstrate the invalidity of the detention. See: 15 Fla.Jur., Habeas Corpus, § 88. Motions pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule 1 are in the nature of a substitute for habeas corpus [See: Roy v. Wainwright, Fla.1963, 151 So.2d 825] and, consequently, allegations in a Criminal Procedure Rule 1 motion, which recite only bald, legal conclusions with no supporting factual allegations, should be properly dismissed. See: Mankus v. State, Fla.App.1964, 161 So.2d 547; Hale v. State, Fla.App.1964, 162 So.2d 5; Dykes v. State, Fla.App.1964, 162 So.2d 675, 677 ( ); Byers v. State, Fla.App.1964, 163 So.2d 57; Wooten v. State, Fla.App.1964, 163 So.2d 305; Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 83 S.Ct. 1068, 10 L.Ed.2d 148.
As stated in the recent case of Sampson v. State, Fla.App.1963, 158 So.2d 771, at page 774:
* * *
* * *
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Wooden
...(Fla.1963); Reddick v. State, 190 So.2d 340 (Fla.App.2nd, 1966); Tolar v. State, 196 So.2d 1 (Fla.App.4th, 1967); and Smith v. State, 176 So.2d 383 (Fla.App.3rd, 1965). Essentially, the Rule provides a method by which allegations formerly raised by petition for habeas corpus directed to the......
-
Brown v. State
...conclusions, and must demonstrate invalidity of the judgment and sentence. Murray v. State, Fla.App.1965, 175 So.2d 236; Smith v. State, Fla.App.1965, 176 So.2d 383; Tolar v. State, Fla.App.1967, 196 So.2d 1; Grayson v. State, Fla.App.1966, 191 So.2d 587; Dias v. State, Fla.App.1963, 158 So......
-
Harris v. State, 64-558
...Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 83 S.Ct. 1068, 10 L.Ed.2d 148 (1963); Sampson v. State, Fla.App.1963, 158 So.2d 771; Smith v. State, Fla.App.1965, 176 So.2d 383 (Not yet reported, opinion filed June 22, 1965).2 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938); see also Russ v. State,......
-
Diehl v. State
...PEARSON, C.J., and HENDRY and SWANN, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Devlin v. State, Fla.App.1966, 192 So.2d 786; and Smith v. State, Fla.App.1965, 176 So.2d 383. ...