JONTAL R. LEE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion for post-conviction relief without appointing counsel.
The defendant appealed the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief, arguing that the trial court violated his due process rights by not appoin…
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 Right To Counsel In Post-Conviction Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Jontal R. Lee (“defendant”) appeals the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief claiming his due process rights were violated when the trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing on his post-conviction motion without appointing counsel. We find no error below and affirm.
There is no automatic right to counsel in post-conviction proceedings, and appointment of post-conviction counsel is a matter solely within the discretion of the trial court. See Rivero v. State, 796 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Schneelock v. State, 665 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).
The factors to be considered by the trial court in exercising that discretion include an examination of the adversarial nature of the proceeding, the complexity of the proceeding, the need for an evidentiary hearing, and the need for substantial legal
research. See Graham v. State, 372 So. 2d 1363 (Fla.1979).
Here, the issues raised in the defendant’s motion are not complex and assistance of counsel is not “essential to accomplish a fair and thorough presentation of the petitioner’s claims.” See Schneelock v. State, 665 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). We note further that it is the province of the trial court, not the appellate court, to evaluate whether the Graham factors have been met. We decline the defendant’s invitation to interfere with the trial court’s discretion in this regard, since to do so would encourage misuse of the appointment of counsel process in post-conviction proceedings.
Accordingly, we affirm the order below in all respects, finding no abuse of discretion in the denial of the defendant’s motion for post-conviction relief.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gutierrez v. State, 854 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…of the eight issues raised were found to be either improperly successive, barred, or conclusively refuted by the record — the majority still substitutes its judgment without foundation in the record. As recently noted by this Court in Lee v. State, 847 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003), there is no automatic right to counsel in post-conviction proceedings, and it is the province of the trial court, not the appellate court, to evaluate whether factors exist which would require the appointment of counsel. See Grah…
-
Montes v. State, 907 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…t him counsel to assist him at the evidentia-ry hearing. “There is no automatic right to counsel in post-conviction proceedings, and appointment of post-conviction counsel is a matter solely within the discretion of the trial court.” Lee v. State, 847 So. 2d 1142, 1143 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); see also Rivero [*1245] v. State, 796 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). In Graham v. State, 372 So. 2d 1363, 1366 (Fla.1979), the Florida Supreme Court established the following four factors to be considered by the trial court…
-
Martinez v. State, 24 So. 3d 733 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…ted: “I would like to request you to appoint me counsel due to the fact that I had assistance with my motion. I didn’t do it on my own, Your Honor.” We reverse because the trial court never explained why counsel was not appointed. In Lee v. State, 847 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003), we said that “[t]here is no automatic right to counsel in post-conviction proceedings, and appointment of post-conviction counsel is a matter solely within the discretion of the trial court.... The factors to be considered by the…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- The Petition of Andrew A. Graham v. State, 372 So. 2d 1363 (Fla. 1979)
- Schneelock v. State, 665 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Rivero v. State, 796 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)