KEITH L. MASON, 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.
Keith Mason appeals convictions for grand theft and uttering a forged check. The court dismisses the grand theft appeal for lack of jurisdiction but reverses the forged check conviction due to the trial court's failure to conduct a Richardson hearing after the state failed to disclose a witness statement.
The trial court's failure to conduct a Richardson hearing is reversible error. The court reversed the uttering conviction and remanded for a new trial. The court also held that when a defendant moves to discharge court-appointed counsel, the trial court must conduct an adequate inquiry into whether the defendant is knowingly and intelligently waiving the right to counsel and whether the appointed counsel has rendered effective assistance, rather than summarily denying the motion.
[1] An appellate court lacks jurisdiction over an appeal for which no notice of appeal was filed.
[2] A trial court's failure to conduct a Richardson hearing after a discovery violation is reversible error unless the state can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defe…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“The state was obligated to disclose to Mason any statement that Mason made.”
Establishes the state's discovery obligation under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220(b)(1)(C)
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMason was charged with grand theft in Case No. 93-11974 and uttering a forged check in Case No. 93-12207. During trial on the uttering charge, the pro…
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 Uttering A Forged Check cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Keith L. Mason seeks review of his convictions for grand theft in Case No. 93-11974 and uttering a forged check in Case No. 93-12207. Mason, however, filed a notice of appeal only in Case No. 93-12207. We have no jurisdiction of Case No. 93-11974; therefore, we dismiss the appeal of Case No. 93-11974 without prejudice to Mason to file a motion with the trial court pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 seeking a belated appeal. See Stephenson v. State, 640 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 2d DCA), review granted, 649 So. 2d 235 (Fla.1994). We reverse Case No. 93-12207 for failure of the trial court to conduct a hearing pursuant to Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla.1971).1
During the direct examination of a witness, the prosecutor asked the witness what conversation he had with the defendant. Defense counsel objected because the state had not disclosed to the defense any statement that Mason may have made to the witness. Defense counsel sought a Richardson hearing, which the trial court denied.
The state was obligated to disclose to Mason any statement that Mason made. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.220(b)(1)(C). The fact that the witness was on the state’s witness list and Mason failed to depose him does not vitiate the state’s discovery violation. See Rainey v. State, 596 So. 2d 1295 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). Once the trial court is aware of the state’s failure to provide discovery, the trial court must conduct a hearing which addresses whether the state’s violation was wilful or inadvertent, whether the violation was substantial or trivial, and the prejudicial effect of the violation on the defendant’s trial preparation. Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla.1971). The failure to conduct a Richardson hearing is reversible error unless the appellate court concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense was not prejudiced procedurally. State v. Schopp, 653 So. 2d 1016 (Fla.1995). We cannot say that the discovery violation was harmless error and are compelled to reverse the conviction for uttering a forged check and to remand for a new trial.
We note that Mason filed a pro se Motion to Dismiss Counsel after his trial but before sentencing. The trial judge denied the motion without conducting any type of inquiry. Although our disposition of this appeal has mooted this issue, we address it because Mason may raise this issue again when he is retried.
A defendant has no constitutional right to different court-appointed counsel; therefore, it is presumed that a defendant who files a motion to dismiss his court-appointed counsel is exercising his right to self-representation. Hardwick v. State, 521 So. 2d 1071 (Fla.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 871, 109 S.Ct. 185, 102 L.Ed.2d 154 (1988). The court is required in this situation to determine whether the defendant is knowingly and intelligently waiving his right to court-appointed counsel. This inquiry must cover the defendant’s age, mental status, education, experience, and the nature and complexity of the case. Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975). See also Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.111(d).
When a defendant raises the incompetency of counsel, the court must conduct an inquiry of the defendant and his appointed counsel to determine whether the counsel has rendered effective assistance. Hardivick, 521 So. 2d at 1074. Of course, the trial court’s inquiry can be only as specific as the defendant’s complaints; however, the court must attempt to clarify the defendant’s complaints. Lowe v. State, 650 So. 2d 969 (Fla.1994). If Mason again moves the court to discharge his counsel, the trial judge must not deny the motion summarily but must make an adequate inquiry consistent with this opinion.
Case No. 93-11974 is dismissed; Case No. 93-12207 is reversed and remanded for a new trial.
FRANK, C.J., and PARKER and WHATLEY, JJ., concur. . We have considered Mason’s issue raising the sufficiency of the evidence. Wc conclude, without discussion, that the state presented sufficient evidence for the trial court to submit the case to the jury.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Evans, 770 So. 2d 1174 (Fla. 2000)…uniformly stressed the State’s continuing duty to disclose the substance of oral statements made by the defendant. See, e.g., Reese v. State, 694 So. 2d 678, 682 (Fla.1997); Delgado v. State, 706 So. 2d 328, 329 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Mason v. State, 654 So. 2d 1225, 1226-27 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Brown v. State, 640 So. 2d 106, 106-07 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); McCray v. State, 640 So. 2d 1215, 1217 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); cf. Collins v. State, 671 So. 2d 827, 828 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (reversing and remanding for an evi-den…
-
Sears v. State, 656 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…hopp to the instant facts, we cannot say beyond a reasonable doubt that no procedural prejudice resulted from the alleged failure of the state to divulge these self-incriminating statements uttered by the appellant to the victim. See Mason v. State, 654 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). We therefore reverse and remand for a new trial. REVERSED and REMANDED. WEBSTER and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.…
-
Powell v. State, 912 So. 2d 698 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…la. 2d DCA 1992); see also Kucher v. State, 758 So. 2d 1165, 1166 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (stating that failure to inform the defendant of oral admissions the defendant made during execution of a search warrant was a discovery violation); Mason v. State, 654 So. 2d 1225, 1226-27 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (determining that failure to disclose the defendant’s oral statement made in a witness’s “conversation” with the defendant was a discovery violation). The fact that Sergeant Gamson disclosed Powell’s spontaneous statement…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1975)
- Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1971)
- Thompson v. Louisiana, 488 U.S. 871 (U.S. 1988)
- Hardwick v. State, 521 So. 2d 1071 (Fla. 1988)
- State v. Schopp, 653 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 1995)
- Thompson v. State, 650 So. 2d 969 (Fla. 1994)
- Rainey v. State, 596 So. 2d 1295 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Stephenson v. State, 640 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)