THOMAS PATRICK CARRAHER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 5th DCA | 1981-07-22
No. 80-1038
FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr. and CO-WART, JJ., concur.
401 So. 2d 889 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (1981)

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

The court held that appointed appellate counsel is entitled to notice and the opportunity to participate in evidentiary hearings ordered by the appellate court.


Facts & Procedural History

The appellant was convicted and appealed, claiming indigency and denial of counsel. The appellate court ordered a hearing on indigency, but appellant'…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
COBB, Judge.

[*890] COBB, Judge.

Carraher appeals his conviction and sentence for aggravated assault on the ground that he had been insolvent at the time of trial and had been denied his request for appointed trial counsel. Upon appealing, Carraher was appointed appellate counsel.

Since no record had been made of the insolvency hearing, this court relinquished jurisdiction to the trial court for forty-five days so that the trial court could conduct an evidentiary hearing and make findings of fact on the record regarding Carraher’s claim of prior indigency.

The trial court held the evidentiary hearing and supplemented the appellate record with the transcript of it. However, Carraher’s appellate counsel was not notified of the hearing and apparently was not allowed to participate in it. Therefore, Carraher has moved for this court to order a second hearing at which his counsel will have the opportunity to appear. The hearing, from which Carraher’s appellate counsel was excluded, was not a nunc pro tunc hearing. It was part of the appellate process. If Carraher had been able to hire private appellate counsel and had done so, that counsel would have been entitled to notice of any appellate proceedings. Likewise, Carraher’s appointed appellate counsel was entitled to notice and the right to appear at the evidentiary hearing that this court ordered. See Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353, 83 S.Ct. 814, 9 L.Ed.2d 811 (1963); Edge v. Wainwright, 347 F. 2d 190 (5th Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 953, 87 S.Ct. 335, 17 L.Ed.2d 231 (1966).

Accordingly, we grant the motion for a second evidentiary hearing and again relinquish jurisdiction to the trial court for forty-five days so that the trial court can conduct a properly noticed evidentiary hearing and make findings of fact on the record regarding Carraher’s claim of prior indigen-cy-

FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr. and CO-WART, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw