Gideon v. Wainwright

From: Florida Supreme Court case files, S. 49, Box 2780, Case 31116

Gideon Petitioner v. Wainwright Respondent, Page 4

Gideon Petitioner v. Wainwright Respondent, Page 4


that rule as being “action not inconsistent” with the Gideon

opinion. In fact, we confess it to be action taken pursuant to

the directive of the Gideon judgment. In view of that Court’s

consistent recognition of the effectiveness of a post-conviction

motion under 28 USC, Section 2255, we feel justified in assuming

that a motion under the Florida rule would receive similar endorse-

ment. In accord with the decision of the Supreme Court of the

United States in the instant matter and pursuant to its mandate,

we therefore hold that Gideon has asserted claims which, if

established, would entitle him to relief promptly and

effectively under the cited rule, and in furtherance of the

directive of the United States Supreme Court, we therefore hold

that the petitioner is entitled to proceed under that rule. Having

provided the petitioner with an efficient, expeditious and effective

forum within which the claimed relief can be obtained, we decline

to issue a writ of habeas corpus but expressly without prejudice

to any rights which the petitioner might assert in the Circuit

Court of Bay County, pursuant to the provisions of Criminal Procedure

Rule #1.

In further consequence of the mandate of the Supreme

Court of the United States the costs of the Clerk of the Court

in the amount of $186.96, and the cost of printing the record in

that Court, in the amount of $405.56, are ordered to be paid by

Bay County Florida directly to the Clerk of the Supreme Court of

the United States. See Carnley v. Cochran, 143 So. 2d 327.

It is so ordered.

ROBERTS, C.J., DREW, O’CONNELL and HOBSON (Ret.), JJ., concur