Opinion

Flores v. Wainwright

  • 240 So. 2d 816
  • 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 5647
Court
District Court of Appeal of Florida
Filed
Nov 13, 1970
Status
Published
Author
Mann
On the bench
Liles, Mann, McNulty
Cited by
8 cases
Authority
More cited than 95.4%

The opinion

MANN, Judge.

Flores seeks appellate review of denial of his third motion pursuant to Fla. Cr.PR 1.850, 33 F.S.A., asserting that the appointed counsel assigned him said that he would appeal but didn’t. His right to appellate review through habeas corpus where denied a normal appeal through state action is clear. Baggett v. Wainwright, Fla.1969, 229 So.2d 239 . This applies as well to denial of appeal from post-conviction proceedings. Cappetta v. Wainwright, Fla.1967, 203 So.2d 609 .

Flores alleges a language problem which caused him to think that he was pleading guilty to a violation of Fla.Stat. § 810.05, F.S.A., breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor, which carries a maximum penalty of five years, whereas he is presently serving a fifteen year sentence for breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony.

It is clear that Flores’ claim that his plea was not made understandingly and voluntarily ought to be heard under Rule 1.850 and that it is not barred by prior presentation to the court so long as it has not been considered and ruled upon. State v. Reynolds, Fla.1970, 238 So.2d 600 . See also Boykin v. Alabama, 1969, 395 U.S. 238 , 89 S.Ct. 1709 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 ; Johnson v. Wainwright, Fla.1970, 238 So.2d 590 ; Rudolph v. State, Fla.App.1970, 230 So.2d 14 .

Flores’ petition adequately asserts that his state-furnished counsel said he would appeal but didn’t. The record of the post-conviction proceeding which he seeks to review is not before us, so we cannot evaluate it, but we do suggest that in the light of our Supreme Court’s recent decision in Reynolds, Flores might want to abandon this route to review, consult with the Public Defender for the Tenth Circuit and file a new petition in the trial court under Rule 1.850. This procedure will save everybody concerned a lot of time. Accordingly, we recognize the adequacy of the petition and grant the rule nisi without prejudice to Flores’ abandonment of habeas corpus and *817 proceeding in the trial court after consultation with counsel.

LILES, Acting C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.