ROBERT G. HYLLEBERG, JR., 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.
Hylleberg appeals the denial of his post-conviction motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, arguing the trial court erred by not appointing private counsel to represent him at the evidentiary hearing. The court affirms, holding that there is no absolute right to appointed counsel in post-conviction proceedings and the trial court did not abuse its discretion.
The court held that there is no absolute right to appointed counsel in post-conviction proceedings; appointment is required only if the trial court determines counsel is essential to accomplish fair and thorough presentation of the petition. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in this case because the issue was relatively simple and Hylleberg presented his arguments cogently and well. The letters were properly considered because they were relevant to explaining counsel's trial strategy.
[1] A defendant does not have an absolute right to appointed counsel in a post-conviction proceeding.
[2] The appointment of counsel in a post-conviction proceeding is discretionary and depends on whether representation is essential for a fair and thorough presentation of the…
Previewing 2 of 6 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“There is no absolute right to appointed counsel in a post-conviction proceeding.”
Establishes the foundational principle that distinguishes post-conviction proceedings from trial proceedings regarding right to counsel.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHylleberg pleaded guilty to first-degree murder and two counts of kidnapping. His public defender did not advise him that voluntary intoxication was 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 Due Process Considerations cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Hylleberg appeals from the trial court’s denial of his post-conviction motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, after an evidentiary hearing. His primary point on appeal is that the trial court erred by not appointing private council to represent him at the hearing. We affirm.
There is no absolute right to appointed counsel in a post-conviction proceeding. Schneelock v. State, 665 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); McCaskill v. State, 638 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). Whether to appoint counsel in such proceedings turns on the trial court’s determination that such representation is essential to accomplish a fair and thorough presentation of the petitioner’s motion. Appointment may be required by due process considerations, if the issues are complex and require substantial legal research. Graham v. State, 372 So. 2d 1363 (Fla.1979). State v. Weeks, 166 So. 2d 892 (Fla.1964). See also Russo v. Akers, 23 Fla. L. Weekly S597, 724 So. 2d 1151 (Fla.1998). The question in these proceedings is whether the assistance of counsel is essential to accomplish a fair and thorough presentation of the claims. Hooks v. State, 253 So. 2d 424, 426 (Fla.1971).
The issue involved in this case was relatively simple: whether the public defender at Hylleberg’s trial failed to advise him, prior to his pleading guilty to first degree murder, that voluntary intoxication is a defense to the crimes with which he was charged (murder and two counts of kidnap-ing).1 The public defender testified that he was well aware that voluntary intoxication was a defense to these crimes, but he said he did not think the defense would “fly” in this case because of Hylleberg’s behavior prior to and during the commission of the crime.2 Accordingly, he advised Hylleberg to plead guilty to the murder count in exchange for the state’s dropping the other charges and not seeking the death penalty.
Whether defense counsel adequately advised Hylleberg about his legal defenses was a relatively simple fact issue which the trial court resolved against Hylleberg. Further, it appears Hylleberg made cogent arguments, correctly cited case law, and represented himself well at the hearing, as can be discovered from reading the transcript of the hearing. We have no basis to conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in not appointing counsel for Hylleberg at the hearing.
We also reject Hylleberg’s argument that letters he wrote which were in sealed, addressed and stamped envelopes, and which were opened without a warrant by the police prior to his entry of a guilty plea, should not have been considered by the court in this proceeding. In entering a guilty plea a defendant admits the facts that underlie the offense. See generally, Pomeranz v. State, 703 So. 2d 465, 469 (Fla.1997). The letters were relevant and indeed essential to explain his trial counsel’s view that in this case voluntary intoxication was not a viable defense.
AFFIRMED.
W. SHARP, PETERSON and THOMPSON, JJ., concur. . Voluntary intoxication is a defense to specific intent murder; State v. Bias, 653 So. 2d 380 (Fla.1995); Gardner v. State, 480 So. 2d 91 (Fla.1985); Stevens v. State, 693 So. 2d 144 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997), and to kidnaping, Sochor v. State, 619 So. 2d 285 (Fla.1993); Worden v. State, 688 So. 2d 958 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).
. Specifically, Hylleberg had implicitly threatened to kill the victim in at least one letter to his mother, where he had stated: What I’m about to do before this day ends is truly wrong and unforgivable. I intend to remedy this situation in my own way as I have done all my life. And the problems with God, may not forgive me for what I'm about to do, but I am going to take that S.O.B. with me, period.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Toliver v. State, 737 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
-
Woodward v. State, 992 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…circumstances of a particular case, “the assistance of counsel is essential to accomplish a fair and thorough presentation” of a defendant’s claim(s) for collateral relief. State v. Weeks, 166 So. 2d 892, 897 (Fla.1964); see also Hylleberg v. State, 729 So. 2d 409, 410 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). In determining whether to appoint counsel to assist an indigent defendant in post-conviction proceedings, trial courts should consider four factors: (1) the “adversary nature of the proceeding”; (2) “its complexity”; (3) “t…
-
Simmons v. State, 99 So. 3d 620 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…circumstances of a particular case, “the assistance of counsel is essential to accomplish a fair and thorough presentation” of a defendant’s claim(s) for collateral relief. State v. Weeks, 166 So. 2d 892, 897 (Fla.1964); see also Hylleberg v. State, 729 So. 2d 409, 410 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). In determining whether to appoint counsel to assist an indigent defendant in postconviction proceedings, trial courts should consider four factors: (1) the “adversary nature of the proceeding;” (2) “its complexity;” (3) “t…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (12 total)
- State v. Weeks, 166 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 1964)
- The Petition of Andrew A. Graham v. State, 372 So. 2d 1363 (Fla. 1979)
- Sochor v. State, 619 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 1993)
- Gardner v. State, 480 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 1985)
- Pomeranz v. State, 703 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 1997)
- Hooks v. State, 253 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 1971)
- Russo v. Akers, 724 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 1998)
- State v. Bias, 653 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 1995)
- Schneelock v. State, 665 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Garcia v. Psychiatric Insts. OF Am., Inc., 638 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)