ZACHARY SWIFT, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
Zachary Swift appeals his probation revocation and three-year sentence for grand theft, challenging the trial court's acceptance of his waiver of counsel at the revocation hearing. The court reversed, holding that the trial court failed to make adequate inquiry into the validity of the waiver as required by law.
The trial court's acceptance of Swift's waiver of counsel was invalid because the court failed to comply with requirements established in Williams v. State and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.111(d), specifically failing to inform Swift of the disadvantages of self-representation and failing to determine whether the waiver was voluntary and intelligent and whether Swift would receive a fair hearing.
[1] A trial court must conduct a sufficient inquiry to ensure a waiver of counsel is made voluntarily and intelligently.
[2] A probationer is entitled to counsel at a probation revocation hearing.
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 intelligence“a probationer is entitled to counsel at a revocation hearing even if he does not wish to deny the charges”
Establishes the fundamental right to counsel in probation revocation proceedings regardless of whether the probationer contests the allegations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSwift was convicted of grand theft and placed on probation for five years. After failing to comply with probation conditions, the court modified his p…
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 Waiver Of Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHEB, Judge.
Zachary Swift appeals the order revoking his probation and subsequent judgment and sentence for grand theft. Swift contends that the trial court failed to make sufficient inquiry prior to accepting his waiver of counsel at the probation revocation hearing. We agree and reverse.
Swift was originally convicted of grand theft and placed on probation for five years. The trial court adjudged him insolvent at that time. Swift subsequently failed to comply with several technical conditions of his probation. The trial court restored his probation but modified the conditions to include six months imprisonment and completion of the program at the Lake-land Probation and Restitution Center. The trial court again adjudged Swift insolvent.
Six months later Swift was charged with failing to participate in the required program at the Restitution Center. At the hearing to determine if his probation should be revoked, Swift informed the court that he did not want an attorney to represent him. The trial court explained to him that he could be sent to prison as a result of the hearing. Further, the court informed him that he was entitled to representation by an attorney, and that an attorney would be appointed if he could not afford one. The court, however, did not inform Swift of the disadvantages of self-representation, nor did it determine whether the waiver was made voluntarily and intelligently. Finally, the court did not determine whether Swift would be deprived of a fair hearing if permitted to represent himself.
The court accepted Swift’s plea of guilty to the violation, revoked his probation, and sentenced him to three-years imprisonment as a youthful offender. The court did appoint the public defender to represent Swift on appeal.
In Smith v. State, 427 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), this court held that a probationer is entitled to counsel at a revocation hearing even if he does not wish to deny the charges. See also Van Cleaf v. State, 328 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). Furthermore, if a probationer wishes to waive his right to counsel, the “trial court must inquire as to the validity of any waiver of counsel pursuant to the requirements set forth in Williams v. State, 427 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.111(d).” Mullins v. State, 438 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).
Here, the trial court failed to inform Swift of the disadvantages of self-representation and to make the necessary inquiry and determination to the extent required in Williams v. State. Therefore, we reverse the order revoking Swift’s probation and the judgment and sentence for grand theft. We remand for a new hearing on the alleged violation of Swift’s probation.
OTT, C.J., and DANAHY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sanderson v. State, 447 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…d to reverse the order revoking probation because of the insufficiency of the trial court’s inquiry regarding self-representation. The criteria necessary to a finding of a proper waiver of counsel are clearly absent in this case. See Swift v. State, 440 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1983); Tucker v. State, 440 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Keene v. State, 420 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), rev. denied 430 So. 2d 452 (Fla.1983); Williams v. State, 427 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1983); Smith v. State, 444 So. 2d 542…
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 427 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Esker E. Smith v. State, 427 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- van Cleaf v. State, 328 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)
- Mullins v. State, 438 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)