JOSEPH BEACH, 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.
Court reversed Beach's sentence because sentencing guidelines included three misdemeanor convictions obtained without counsel or knowing waiver, holding that defendant's affidavit was sufficient to place the issue and burden on the state to prove otherwise.
A defendant's affidavit stating he was not provided nor offered counsel at prior proceedings is sufficient to place the issue in question and require the state to prove the convictions were counseled or counsel was knowingly waived.
[1] A defendant's affidavit denying that counsel was provided or offered at prior proceedings is sufficient to place the issue in controversy and shift to the state the burde…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“IS THE DEFENDANT'S STATEMENT UNDER OATH THAT HE WAS NOT PROVIDED NOR OFFERED COUNSEL AT THE PROCEEDINGS RESULTING IN PRIOR CONVICTIONS SUFFICIENT TO PUT THE STATE TO THE BURDEN OF PROVING THAT SUCH CONVICTIONS WERE IN FACT COUNSELED OR THAT COUNSEL WAS KNOWINGLY WAIVED?”
Certified question of great public importance to the Florida Supreme Court
Joseph Beach's sentence was calculated under sentencing guidelines that included three misdemeanor convictions. Beach contended these convictions were…
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 Sentencing Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse Joseph Beach’s sentence because it was based on sentencing guidelines calculations under Rule 3.701, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, that included three misdemeanor convictions that appellant contends were obtained without counsel or a knowing waiver of the right to counsel. We hold that his affidavit was sufficient to place these facts in issue and require the state to bear the burden of showing the contrary. State v. Troehler, 546 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Smith v. State, 498 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Accordingly, we remand for resentencing with leave to give the state an opportunity to prove that the prior convictions were either counseled or that counsel was knowingly waived. Oldacre v. State, 509 So. 2d 1343 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). We certify the following question to be of great public importance for purposes of review by the supreme court:
IS THE DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT UNDER OATH THAT HE WAS NOT PROVIDED NOR OFFERED COUNSEL AT THE PROCEEDINGS RESULTING IN PRIOR CONVICTIONS SUFFICIENT TO PUT THE STATE TO THE BURDEN OF PROVING THAT SUCH CONVICTIONS WERE IN FACT COUNSELED OR THAT COUNSEL WAS KNOWINGLY WAIVED?
We find no error in the trial court’s inclusion of 30 points for legal constraint because the record shows that appellant did not clearly dispute the fact represented in the PSI report that he was on probation at the time he committed the charged offense.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
BOOTH, SMITH and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Beach, 592 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 1992)…HARDING, Justice. We have for review Beach v. State, 564 So. 2d 614, 614 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), where the First District Court of Appeal certified the following question to be of great public importance: IS THE DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT UNDER OATH THAT HE WAS NOT PROVIDED NOR OFFERED COUNSEL AT THE PROCEEDINGS RESULTING…
-
Rock v. State, 584 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…tate failed to do so. Consequently, that portion of the revocation order based upon appellant’s uncounseled convictions must be reversed and the matter remanded for new hearing on the issue.2 In so saying, we note that this court in Beach v. State, 564 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), petition for review filed, No. 76,576 (Fla. Aug. 31, 1990), previously certified a question to the supreme court regarding whether a defendant’s sworn statement is sufficient to shift the burden to the state to prove that the co…
-
Beach v. State, 600 So. 2d 1212 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…PER CURIAM. The Supreme Court of Florida accepted jurisdiction and reviewed the question certified in our prior opinion filed on July 31, 1990, in this case.1 Beach v. State, 564 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). The su [*1213] preme court’s opinion, reported at 592 So. 2d 237 (Fla.1992), answered the certified question in the negative, disapproved our decision, and remanded “with leave for Beach to file an amended motion to correct his…
Authorities Cited
- Smith v. State, 498 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- State v. Troehler, 546 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Oldacre v. State, 509 So. 2d 1343 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)