OTIS WOODBERRY, 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.
A defendant is effectively denied counsel when an unprepared lawyer, not of their choosing or firm, appears without explanation at a critical stage.
An attorney, not selected by the defendant nor formally approved, appeared at a critical stage of a criminal case for a defendant in custody, solely a…
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 Effective Assistance Of Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, at trial, was represented by court-appointed counsel. Another attorney appeared for appellant at sentencing. Appellant argues on appeal that this substitution of counsel rendered the sentencing hearing fundamentally unfair and constitutionally deficient. We decline to adopt a rule that such substitution constitutes reversible error per se. Each case must proceed on its own facts, and the burden is on appellant to demonstrate that his rights were prejudiced by the substitution. Eutzy v. State, 536 So. 2d 1014, 1015 (Fla.1988) (to support a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must demonstrate that counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced him). We find no such prejudice on this record. However, the written sentencing orders (entered after jury verdict of guilty) pertaining to Counts I through IX and XIV of an amended information imposing a twenty-five year mandatory minimum term of imprisonment, we find to be in error. At the sentencing hearing the trial court correctly imposed the three year mandatory minimum term of imprisonment. Remand is therefore necessary only to correct the errors in the sentencing forms. Tetro v. State, 581 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).
In all other respects we affirm.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED.
HERSEY and POLEN, JJ., concur. STONE, J., dissents with opinion.
STONE, Judge,
dissenting.
I would reverse. In my judgment, a defendant is effectively denied counsel where a lawyer, possibly1 unprepared, appears without explanation at a critical stage in a criminal case on behalf of a defendant in custody, solely at the request of another court appointed counsel. The attorney was neither selected with the defendant’s consent nor formally approved to represent the defendant. He was not even a member of defense counsel’s law firm.
Under such circumstances, and in the absence of a record with respect to how this appearance came about, I would hold that the only effective way to assure Sixth Amendment protection is to remand for a new sentencing hearing. Cf. Tucker v. Day, 969 F. 2d 155 (5th Cir.1992); Holley v. State, 484 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 492 So. 2d 1335 (Fla.1986).
. I say “possibly,” as the facts concerning the selection and preparation of substitute counsel are largely speculative and would, of course, need to be proven in any subsequent rule 3.850 proceeding.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Johnson v. State, 921 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 2005)…e a right to have a particular attorney represent him. Koon v. State, 513 So. 2d 1253 (Fla.1987) (citing Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1, 103 S.Ct. 1610, 75 L.Ed.2d 610 (1983)). The decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Woodberry v. State, 611 So. 2d 1291 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), is instructive in this case. The appellant in Woodberry was represented by court-appointed counsel at trial. A different attorney appeared for Wood-berry at sentencing. Woodberry argued on appeal that this substitution of counse…
-
Woodberry v. State, 193 So. 3d 5 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…(Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Gray, which was decided in 1995, does not apply retroactively. State v. Woodley, 695 So. 2d 297, 298 (Fla.1997). Woodberry’s conviction has been final since the mandate issued on direct appeal in March 1993. Woodberry v. State, 611 So. 2d 1291 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). The fact that he was later resen-tenced on a postconviction .motion did not restart the time for him to raise postcon-viction challenges to his conviction. See Jones v. State, 922 So. 2d 1088, 1090 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (recognizi…
Authorities Cited
- Ernie Ray Holley v. State, 484 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Eutzy v. State, 536 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 1988)
- Tetro v. State, 581 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- Tucker v. DAY, 969 F.2d 155 (5th Cir. 1992)