Mason v. StateMason v. State
Appellant Henry Mason entered his plea of guilty in the Court of Record in Escambia County, Florida, on August 29, 1955 in Case No. 2556-B, and on November 16, 1955 was sentenсed to a term of ten years. The record does not reveal what occurred with reference to Mason serving this sentence. On June 22, 1962 in Cаse No. 62-583 Mason entered his plea of guilty to seven counts of an infоrmation charging him with armed robbery. Again he was adjudged guilty by the Court of Record in Escambia County, Florida and was sentenced to a term of twenty-five yеars.
On September 4, 1963 Mason filed his motion to vacate the sentenсe imposed in
The rule is clearly established that а plea of guilty does not per se constitute an implied waiver of an indigent prisoner’s right to counsel, and where the only evidence of such a waiver is a plea of guilty, it will not be presumed the accused knowingly and intelligently waived the right.
An examination of the record in this causе reveals the following finding by the trial court at the time it sentenced Mason in the instant cause, viz.:
“ * * * and upon inquiry by the Court to each defendant as tо whether they had counsel or desired counsel each defendant announced that he was without counsel and did not desire same.”
We held in Dykes v. State
1. He did not realize the consequences of his act in pleading guilty to seven counts of an information сharging him with armed robbery. The record before us reveals that Mason рleaded guilty to a single' offense of robbery in 1955 and was sentenced tо ten years. This prior experience refutes the allegation thаt he didn’t know the consequences of his plea to a subsequent informаtion.
2. His conviction was founded upon an illegal search of his home by officers and brutality on their part at the time of his arrest. Such allegations are proper subjects for an appeal from a judgment of conviction but may not be reviewed in a collateral prоceeding attacking the regularity of the initial judgment. This is especially true in the instant cause since proof of guilt is not required where a plеa of guilty is entered.
We conclude that the material facts allеged by movant in this cause are rebutted by the record and that the trial judge properly rejected movant’s petition without requiring that further evidеnce be adduced at the hearing. We are not unmindful of our sister courts’ decisions
Affirmed.
Notes
. Dortch v. State,
. Dykes v. State,
. Kirkland v. State,
. Phillips v. State,