JAMES MARVIN SMITH, 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 a trial court's failure to make a sufficient inquiry into whether a defendant knowingly and intelligently waived their right to counsel constitutes reversible error.
The appellant was convicted of escape. The trial court did not adequately inquire into the appellant's ability to intelligently waive his right to cou…
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 Intelligent Waiver cases and more on FLexlaw
ERVIN, Judge.
The appellant appeals his conviction for the offense of escape. Finding that the trial court failed to make a sufficient in quiry in determining whether the appellant made an intelligent waiver of his right to counsel, we reverse and remand.
This case is controlled by Smith v. State, 444 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). In Smith, this court set forth specific guidelines which a trial court must follow in order to ensure that the defendant is knowingly and intelligently relinquishing his right to assistance of counsel. Although we acknowledge that the trial court’s inquiry of the appellant in this case was more thorough than that made by the trial court in Smith, the trial judge still failed to make the pertinent inquiries mandated by Smith and Rule 3.111(d), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure.1
Specifically, Smith holds that when a defendant moves to discharge his court-appointed attorney, the trial court should first determine whether adequate grounds exist for replacement of the attorney with new counsel. The trial court here made no such determination. Additionally, the court made no inquiry as to the appellant’s age, mental condition, education, or the nature and complexity of the case, all of which are relevant to determine the appellant’s capacity to make an intelligent waiver of assistance of counsel.
The deprivation of assistance of counsel without a sufficient examination into the ability of the defendant to intelligently waive such a right constitutes reversible error. The judgment and sentence are vacated and the case is remanded for a new trial.
REVERSED and REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
SMITH, C.J., concurs.
BOOTH, J., dissents.
. Rule 3.111(d)(3), provides: "No waiver shall be accepted where it appears that the defendant is unable to make an intelligent and understanding choice because of his mental condition, age, education, experience, the nature or complexity of the case, or other factors.”
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bowen v. State, 677 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…eal. See McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168, 104 S.Ct. 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. Stat…
-
Johnson v. State, 629 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)…Williams; Taylor; Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.111(d). These errors require us to reverse. Hayes v. State, 566 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (reversed and remanded for new trial after more detailed inquiry than in instant case); Williams; Taylor; Smith v. State, 512 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). We reverse the appellant’s convictions and remand for further proceedings. FRANK, C.J., and SCHOONOVER, J., concur.…
-
Hart v. State, 529 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…ly and intelligently relinquished his right to counsel, as mandated by Faretta and Rule 3.111(d), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, the conviction and sentence of McCutchen is reversed and his case is remanded for a new trial. See Smith v. State, 512 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Following jury selection, Hart renewed his motion to dismiss counsel. After prompting by the state attorney, the court inquired regarding the defendant’s educational background, as well as his experience in trial cases and crim…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Thompson, 444 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)