183 So. 2d 714 | Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 1966
Appellant has appealed an order entered by the Court of Record of Escambia County denying his motion for relief filed pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix. The sole point on appeal
An examination of the motion filed by appellant reveals an absence of any allegation to the effect that at the time of his arrest and trial he was indigent and unable to procure the services of counsel. Allegation and proof of indigency is an indispensable prerequisite to relief from a judgment of conviction on the ground that the petitioner was unlawfully denied the right to counsel.
In the order appealed the trial court found from the record of the cause that motions for relief similar to the one filed in this case were filed by appellant on June 4, 1963, October 24, 1963, January 2, 1964, and January 8, 1964, all of which were duly considered by the court and denied. The order denying the last motion filed by appellant was appealed to and affirmed by this court. The order appealed comes to this court with a presumption of correctness, and there is nothing in the record on appeal to challenge its verity. The trial court is not required to entertain successive motions by the same party seeking the same relief on essentially the same grounds.
It appears that appellant’s principal contention is predicated on the assumption that because his codefendant, Henry Mason, was held to be entitled to an eviden-tiary hearing on the motion for relief filed by him,
The order appealed is affirmed.
. Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1962).
. Criminal Procedure Rule 1.
“ * * * The sentencing court shall not be required to entertain a second or successive motion for similar relief on behalf of the same prisoner. * * * ”
. Mason v. State, (Fla.1965) 176 So.2d 76.