Case ID: so2d_225/html/0176-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PIERCE, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Smiley Vincent KEENE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 68-558.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.
    June 18, 1969.
    Rehearing Denied Aug. 13,1969.
    Robert W. Rawlins, Public Defender, and John M. Gilbert, Asst. Public Defender, Tampa, for appellant.
    Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Morton J. Hanlon, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.
   PIERCE, Judge.

In May, 1965, appellant Keene was convicted by a jury after trial upon an information charging robbery, and was thereupon sentenced to a term of 30 years imprisonment.

On October 7, 1968 he filed his motion to vacate the conviction and sentence under CrPR 1.850, 33 F.S.A. This motion was summarily denied on October 16, 1968. The only allegation alleged in the motion that warrants discussion here was that his trial-appointed counsel did not advise him of “his right to appeal the decision of the Court.” We will assume he meant the judgment of conviction entered against him after trial.

No showing is made in the motion of any alleged error or irregularity of the trial proceedings that might reasonably have brought about a reversal of the judgment upon direct appeal. This Court has recently held, in Barnett v. State, Fla.App. 1969, 222 So.2d 30, that a motion so filed must contain such allegation, specifying the substantial error or irregularity relied upon. In Barnett it was shown that all four District Courts of Appeal have now held uniformly on this point.

Upon authority of Barnett and the cases therein cited, the order appealed from is

Affirmed.

LILES, C. J., and MANN, J., concur.