Williams v. State
| Decision Date | 22 September 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 33751,33751 |
| Citation | 178 So.2d 586 |
| Parties | Edward WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Theron A. Yawn, Jr., and Eugene F. Shaw, Starke, for appellant.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and George R. Georgieff, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Edward Williams was convicted by a jury of murder in the first degree and sentenced to death. No appeal was taken from the judgment 'imposing the death penalty.'
This attempted direct appeal to the Supreme Court is from a denial of a so-called Motion for a New Trial which motion, in truth and in fact, was one to vacate the judgment and sentence and was filed pursuant suant to Criminal Procedure Rule One, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix. It challenges the constitutional legality of Willams' conviction.
Article V, Section 4(2) of the Florida constitutional legality of Williams' conviction.
It is not, and could not with good grace be, suggested that the order denying the Motion to Vacate was a final judgment or decree in which the learned Circuit Judge passed directly upon 'the validity of a state statute or a federal statute or treaty.' In the oppugned order the trial judge did not construe 'a controlling provision of the Florida or federal constitution.' Actually he refused to do so and merely determined that the decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court in Hamilton v. State of Alabama, 368 U.S. 52, 82 S.Ct. 157, 7 L.Ed.2d 114; White v. State of Maryland, 373 U.S. 59, 83 S.Ct. 1050, 10 L.Ed.2d 193, and the decision of the Supreme Court of Florida in Harris v. State, 162 So.2d 262, are not applicable to the instant case. He indicated that the decision in 'the now famous case of Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 [83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799]' is more nearly in point because Edward Williams did not allege nor did he prove that he was, at any stage of the proceeding, an indigent person.
The appeal in the instant case is admittedly not one from an order, judgment or sentence 'imposing the death penalty'--it is, as aforestated, one from an order denying a motion to vacate filed by appellant in the Circuit Court in and for Martin County, Florida--the court in which he was convicted.
The pertinent provisions of Criminal Procedure Rule One, Fla., 151 So.2d 634, clearly afford a state prisoner the right to assail his confinement by a motion to vacate filed in the court in which his trial occurred. It cannot be argued that this is not a clear pronouncement by this Court that as of the date of the adoption of this rule the several trial courts of the State of Florida (excepting only municipal courts) could properly entertain a collateral attack by such a motion and if the circumstances indicated the propriety thereof, could vacate a judgment and sentence even if it were one imposing the death penalty. Since the several trial courts were, by the adoption of Criminal Procedure Rule One given the authority and jurisdiction to so act, it is a vain gesture to contend that an appeal from an order denying such relief should be lodged in this Court. There are presently in existence three (3) able district courts of appeal in which such a review can be sought--in this case the District Court of Appeal, Second District, is the proper forum.
On the face of appellant's pleadings in said circuit court as well as throughout the order of the circuit court denying the relief sought, it is clear that the motion was one brought pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule One and that in fact the notice of appeal is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Fourth Dist. Court of Appeal, 89947
...of his decision to seek prohibition in the district court of appeal, Harvey relies primarily upon this Court's opinion in Williams v. State, 178 So.2d 586 (Fla.1965). In Williams, we held that an appeal from the denial of a capital defendant's motion for postconviction relief should be take......
-
Chatman v. State
...The distinction between the two is sufficient to vest jurisdiction in this court rather than the Supreme Court of Florida. Williams v. State, Fla.1965, 178 So.2d 586. Petitioner's sole argument that his conviction and sentence was improper is that a plea of guilty cannot be accepted in a ca......
-
Williams v. State
...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 d......
-
Whitlow v. State, 46744
...District, for proceedings pursuant to Rule 3.850. It is so ordered. ADKINS, C.J., and ROBERTS, OVERTON and ENGLAND, JJ., concur. 1 178 So.2d 586 (Fla.1965). ...