Gideon v. Wainwright

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

Gideon Petitioner v. Wainwright Respondent, Page 3

Gideon Petitioner v. Wainwright Respondent, Page 3


In meeting the full measure of our responsibility we

turned to federal criminal procedures for a precedent. It appeared

to us that the most effective procedural remedy that could be pro-

vided under the circumstances would be to adopt as a criminal

procedure rule the express language of 28 USC, Section 2255, which

had been enacted by the Congress in 1948, and has since been

employed in the federal system in many cases. Under our constitu-

tional rule-making power, Article V, Section 3, Florida Constitution,

we promulgated, on April 1, 1963, Criminal Procedure Rule #1. Except

to the extent necessary to adapt the language of the statute to

the Florida courts, the rule which we have promulgated is identical

with the federal statute. Roy v. Wainwright, supra.

Under the rule which we have announced, post-conviction

relief can be obtained where there is a claimed denial of some

fundamental or organic right in the course of the trial. The relief

available is coextensive with that which would be available in

habeas corpus. The rule, however, minimizes the difficulties

encountered in habeas corpus hearings and affords the same rights

in a more convenient forum and one best prepared to consider the

claims of a prisoner convicted in that very forum. Hill v. U. S.,

368 U. S. 424, 82 S. Ct. 468, 7 L. Ed. 2d 417; Machibroda v. United

States, 368 U. S. 487, 82 S. Ct. 510, 7 L. Ed. 2d 473; United States

v. Hayman, 342 U. S. 205, 72 S. Ct. 263, 96 L. Ed. 232. See also

Parker, Limiting the Abuse of Habeas Corpus, 8 FRD 171.

We took this action prior to receipt of the mandate of

the Supreme Court of the United States in the instant case in prompt

fulfillment of our judicial obligation which was indicated in the

opinion of the court.

Inasmuch as it was not announced until April 1, 1963,

the existence of our Criminal Procedure Rule #1, was naturally not

made known to the United States Supreme Court in the course of the

Gideon proceeding. Nevertheless, we consider the promulgation of