From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Haywood v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Jan 15, 1969
218 So. 2d 242 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1969)

Opinion

No. 68-395.

January 15, 1969.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County, Joseph P. McNulty, J.

Robert E. Jagger, Public Defender, and Joseph F. McDermott, Asst. Public Defender, Clearwater, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Robert R. Crittenden, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.


Appellant contends that his petition under Rule 1.850, F.R.C.P., 33 F.S.A., was erroneously denied without an evidentiary hearing. The petition alleges improper reception of a guilty plea. The record indicates that the trial judge asked a long and appropriate series of questions the answers to which indicate clearly that the appellant knowingly and intelligently entered a plea of guilty.

Oral argument is dispensed with as serving no useful purpose pursuant to Rule 3.10, subd. e, F.A.R., 32 F.S.A.

Affirmed.

HOBSON, A.C.J., and PIERCE, J., concur.


Summaries of

Haywood v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Jan 15, 1969
218 So. 2d 242 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1969)
Case details for

Haywood v. State

Case Details

Full title:VIRGIL HAYWOOD, A/K/A VIRGIL HAYWARD, A/K/A WILLIE THOMAS, APPELLANT, v…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Jan 15, 1969

Citations

218 So. 2d 242 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1969)

Citing Cases

Mathis v. State

PER CURIAM. Affirmed on authority of Haywood v. State, Fla.App. 1969, 218 So.2d 242; and Steinhauser v.…

Hooper v. State

See also our opinion in Manning v. State, Fla.App., 203 So.2d 360, the 3rd District cases of Chisholm v.…