OLGA L. ROMANI, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
The court held that the defendant's due process rights were not violated by the denial of appointed counsel for indigency hearings and that the prosecutor's improper argument was harmless error.
[1] Due process does not require the appointment of counsel for the purpose of an indigency hearing.
[2] A determination of indigency that involves no abuse of discretion does not violate due process.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant was convicted of Medicaid fraud and RICO violations. She appealed, arguing due process violations regarding counsel for indigency hearin…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Medicaid Fraud cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant was convicted of Medicaid fraud and violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. In seeking reversal, she contends that her due process rights were violated and that at closing the prosecution improperly argued evidence not before the jury. We uphold the judgment of conviction.
As to the first contention, since due process does not require the appointment of counsel for the purpose of an indigency hearing, see Rollins v. State, 299 So. 2d 586 (Fla.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1009, 95 S.Ct. 328,42 L.Ed.2d 283 (1974), it cannot be maintained that because the public defender had once been appointed on the basis of the defendant’s indigence and then withdrew because of a conflict of interest, due process required a court-appointed attorney to represent the defendant at the subsequent indigency hearings held pursuant to Enrique v. State, 408 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), pet. for review denied, 418 So. 2d 1280 (Fla.1982); nor is it a denial of due process when the subsequent hearings lead to a nonindigency determination involving no abuse of discretion, see Keur v. State, 160 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963), and the defendant proceeds to trial pro se after being furnished a reasonable opportunity to obtain and effectively assist private counsel prior to trial. See Cash v. Culver, 120 So. 2d 590 (Fla.1960).
As to the second contention, it is conceded by the state that during closing argument the prosecutor informed the jury of the dissolution in June, 1979 of the defendant’s medical partnership with another physician (thereby disputing the defendant’s assertion that the partner, and not she, had received the illegal 1980 Medicaid payments) when no evidence of the dissolution was introduced during the trial itself. However, the injection of the improper argument was entirely harmless in view of the state’s proof that the subject Medicaid claim forms were signed by the defendant and that the Medicaid checks were made payable to and and were negotiated by the defendant herself.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Olga Romani, M.D. v. State, 528 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…or assigned to Romani’s case, and James Harris, a former employee. Romani was subsequently convicted of Medicaid fraud and violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The convictions were affirmed on appeal. Romani v. State, 429 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). . "[A] single conspiracy may have as its object the violation of two or more ... substantive offenses.” Brown v. State, 130 Fla. 479, 178 So. [*18] 153, 156 (1938). This conspiracy was formed to kill the individuals on the list.…
Authorities Cited
- Keur v. State, 160 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- Reynold Enrique v. State, 408 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Petty v. United States, 419 U.S. 1009 (U.S. 1974)
- Rollins v. Florida, 419 U.S. 1009 (U.S. 1974)
- Cash v. Culver, 120 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 1960)
- Rollins v. State, 299 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 1974)