Williams v. State
| Decision Date | 21 March 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 443,443 |
| Citation | 184 So.2d 525 |
| Parties | Edward WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Theron A. Yawn, Jr., of Yawn & Shaw, Starke, for appellant.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and George R. Georgieff, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.
We treat this as an appeal from an order denying a motion to vacate judgment and sentence filed pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule One, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix, Williams v. State, Fla.1965, 178 So.2d 586.
Edward Williams, appellant, was tried by jury and convicted of murder in the first degree without recommendation of mercy. A death sentence was imposed and no appeal was taken from this judgment. The time for appeal having long since expired, Williams seeks via the instant procedure to collaterally attack his judgment of conviction.
Two problems present themselves. First, was error committed during the course of his trial? Second, if errors do appear, has there been such a denial or infringement of the constitutional rights of the prisoner as to render the judgment vulnerable to collateral attack through Criminal Procedure Rule One?
The jury having retired to consider its verdict, it interrupted its deliberation and returned to the courtroom and asked, 'If the case of a verdict of murder with mercy, recommende(d), does that make the defendant able to be paroled or can it be--is it permanent?' The court answered, 'Under the law of the State of Florida, any person imprisoned in the State Prison for life or for a term of years, is eligible for parole.' This answer by the court was harmful error. Burnette v. State, Fla.1963, 157 So.2d 65 (). While this colloquy would form a proper basis for reversal on direct appeal, it is not a sufficient basis for relief under Criminal Procedure Rule One.
The defendant was granted a preliminary hearing before a justice of the peace. Defendant unattended by counsel, entered a plea of guilty and stated, 'I am guilty, I did it.' The justice of the peace testified at trial and, over the defendant's objection, repeated the defendant's statement. Defendant did not testify or offer evidence.
The assistance of counsel is an essential of due process at every critical stage of a criminal prosecution that can result in the death sentence. Here the preliminary hearing was rendered a critical stage when at trial evidence of the judicial confession was permitted. Thus,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. State, 37316
...his conviction and was awarded a new trial pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule 1 (now 33 F.S.A. Rule 1.850). See Williams v. State, 184 So.2d 525 (Fla.4th DCA 1966). In the instant proceedings appellant was found guilty of first degree murder. The jury did not recommend mercy and the death ......
-
Williams v. Wainwright, 29099.
...conviction was overturned and a new trial ordered by the Florida Supreme Court pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule 1. Williams v. State, 184 So.2d 525 (4th DCA Fla. 1966). Both juries failed to recommend mercy and Petitioner was sentenced to death. The second conviction was affirmed on dire......
-
Williams v. Wainwright
...and a new trial ordered by the Florida Supreme Court pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix. Williams v. State, 184 So.2d 525 (4th DCA Fla. 1966). Both juries failed to recommend mercy and Petitioner was sentenced to death. The second conviction was affirmed on direc......
-
Moses v. State, 70--517
...Devlin v. State, Fla.App.1966, 192 So.2d 786; to the same effect see Baxley v. State, Fla.App.1966, 192 So.2d 510, and Williams v. State, Fla.App.1966, 184 So.2d 525. No objection was raised by Moses to the failure of the trial Court to charge upon the offense of aggravated assault until th......