E.C.M., 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.
E.C.M., a juvenile, challenges a restitution order imposed without counsel present. The appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court committed error by failing to advise E.C.M. of his right to counsel at the restitution hearing and by failing to establish that he knowingly and voluntarily waived that right.
The trial court erred by imposing restitution without advising E.C.M. of his right to counsel and by failing to establish that E.C.M. intentionally relinquished or abandoned his known right to counsel. The restitution order is reversed and the case is remanded for a new restitution hearing where E.C.M. must be advised of his right to counsel.
[1] A child is entitled to representation by legal counsel at all stages of any proceedings under Florida Statutes section 985.203(1).
[2] A child shall be represented by legal counsel at all stages of all court proceedings unless the right to counsel is freely, knowingly, and intelligently waived by the chi…
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“A child is entitled to representation by legal counsel at all stages of any proceedings under this part.... A child shall be represented by legal counsel at all stages of all court proceedings unless the right to counsel is freely, knowingly, and intelligently waived by the child.”
Establishes the fundamental right to counsel in juvenile proceedings and the requirement for valid waiver
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceE.C.M. executed a written waiver of counsel at his November 22, 2000 arraignment, stating "I don't want a lawyer for this hearing." At a subsequent re…
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 Restitution Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw
DAVIS, Judge.
E.C.M. challenges the circuit court’s order requiring him to pay $1829 in restitution. We reverse because the trial court imposed restitution without offering E.C.M. counsel or determining that he voluntarily waived his right to counsel.
Section 985.203(1), Florida Statutes (2000), provides:
A child is entitled to representation by legal counsel at all stages of any proceedings under this part.... A child shall be represented by legal counsel at all stages of all court proceedings unless the right to counsel is freely, knowingly, and intelligently waived by the child. If the child appears without counsel, the court shall advise the child of his or her rights with respect to representation of court-appointed counsel.
Additionally, Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.165(b)(4) states:
If a waiver is accepted at any stage of the proceedings, the offer of assistance of counsel shall be renewed by the court at each subsequent stage of the proceedings at which the party appears without counsel.
“To establish that a person has knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to counsel, the state must prove ‘an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege.’” J.G.S. v. State, 435 So. 2d 942, 943 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) (quoting Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387, 404, 97 S.Ct. 1232, 51 L.Ed.2d 424 (1977)).
At E.C.M.’s November 22, 2000, arraignment, he executed a written waiver of counsel, which read “I don’t want a lawyer for this hearing.” (Emphasis added.) At the February 20, 2001, restitution hearing the trial court did not advise E.C.M. of his right to counsel. This was error. See Hodas v. State, 603 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).
Additionally, E.C.M. did not intentionally relinquish or abandon his known right to counsel at the restitution hearing. The record reflects that when the trial court asked E.C.M. if he was represented by counsel, the clerk answered, “Not in this case,” but E.C.M. said nothing.
Accordingly, we reverse the restitution order and remand for a new restitution hearing at which E.C.M. will be advised of his right to counsel.
Reversed and remanded.
NORTHCUTT, J., and THREADGILL, EDWARD F., Senior Judge, Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Amendments to the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure, 894 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 2005)…ing a determination of delinquency and placement of juvenile on probation where trial court failed to inquire into juvenile’s waiver of counsel at the plea hearing and failed to renew an offer of counsel at the disposition hearing); E.C.M. v. State, 835 So. 2d 1280 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (finding that trial court committed reversible error when it failed to advise juvenile of right to counsel at restitution hearing even though the juvenile had previously waived counsel at arraignment); D.A. v. State, 831 So. 2d 81…
Authorities Cited
- Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387 (U.S. 1977)
- J.G.S. v. State, 435 So. 2d 942 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Hodas v. State, 603 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)