NATHANIEL DANIELS, 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.
The court held that the trial court erred by failing to properly inform the appellant of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation after he refused court-appointed counsel.
The appellant sought to discharge his court-appointed attorney on the day of trial. The trial court denied the motion, refused a continuance, and orde…
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 Right To Self-Representation (Pro Se) cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHOONOVER, Judge.
The appellant, Nathaniel Daniels, has appealed from a judgment and sentence entered pursuant to a jury verdict finding him guilty of aggravated battery. We reverse.
On the day of trial, the appellant filed a motion seeking discharge of his court-appointed attorney. After a hearing, the trial court denied the appellant’s motion, refused his request for a continuance, and ordered the jury selection process to commence immediately. Additionally, the court, over appellant’s objection, required the court-appointed attorney to sit with the appellant during trial.
A person entitled to court-appointed counsel has neither the right to select a specific attorney nor the right to discharge competent and conscientious counsel. Wilder v. State, 156 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963). Therefore, once the trial court ruled there was insufficient reason to discharge the attorney, the appellant either had to accept that attorney or forego representation. By refusing to accept the court-appointed attorney, the appellant in effect was attempting to exercise his right to self-representation. Mitchell v. State, 407 So. 2d 1005 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). At this point, the court had an obligation to inform the appellant of the benefits he was relinquishing and resulting dangers and disadvantages of self-representation. Then, if the appellant still insisted upon dismissing counsel, the court had a duty to determine whether the appellant had made his choice voluntarily and intelligently and/or whether unusual circumstances existed which would preclude him from presenting his own case. Williams v. State, 427 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).
In the ease sub judice, upon appellant’s refusal of court-appointed counsel, the trial court failed to make the proper determination in accordance with the procedures outlined in Williams.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
OTT, C.J., and LEHAN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bowen v. State, 677 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…944, 79 L.Ed.2d 122 (1984); Johnston v. State, 497 So. 2d 863 (Fla.1986); Jones v. State, 658 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Matthews v. State, 584 So. 2d 1105 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Smith v. State, 512 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Daniels v. State, 449 So. 2d 950 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Smith v. State, 444 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Morgano v. State, 439 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Williams v. State, 427 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Robinson v. State, 368 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Cappetta v. Sta…
-
Wilson v. State, 573 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975); Hart v. State, [*418] 529 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Brevard County Bd. of County Comm’s v. State, 516 So. 2d 968 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987), rev. den., 528 So. 2d 1183 (Fla.1988); Daniels v. State, 449 So. 2d 950 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Smith v. State, 444 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Williams v. State, 427 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Nelson v. State, 274 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). REVERSED and REMANDED. COBB and HARRIS, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Wilder v. State, 156 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963)
- Williams v. State, 427 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Mitchell v. State, 407 So. 2d 1005 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)