CRAIG A. JACKSON, 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.
The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to appoint counsel for a postconviction relief evidentiary hearing.
Appellant sought postconviction relief and requested counsel for an evidentiary hearing. The trial court denied his motion without appointing counsel.…
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 Appointment Of Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
FULMER, Chief Judge.
Craig A. Jackson appeals from an order denying his motion for postconviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. We reverse and remand for a new evidentiary hearing because the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to appoint counsel to represent Jackson for the hearing. See Williams v. State, 472 So. 2d 738 (Fla.1985); Lee v. State, 801 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).
Both Williams and Lee discuss the four factors that are to be considered by the trial judge in deciding whether counsel should be appointed for postcon-viction proceedings. The need for an evidentiary hearing itself implies that three of the four factors are involved: the adversary nature of the proceeding, its complexity, and the need for an evidentiary hearing. See Williams, 472 So. 2d at 740; Lee, 801 So. 2d at 1023. The fourth factor is the need for substantial legal research. See Williams, 472 So. 2d at 740. The court noted in Williams that “[e]videntiary hearings are adversarial in nature, and the rules of evidence and procedure are mystifyingly complex to all but the most sophisticated non-lawyers.” Id. “[A]ny doubt about the need for counsel must be resolved in favor of the indigent defendant.” Id.
The record reflects that Jackson requested counsel and that he was not capable of effectively presenting his case and cross-examining his prior counsel. Therefore, as in Williams and Lee, because there was doubt about the need for counsel, reversal and remand for appointment of counsel and a new hearing is required. See also State v. Pawle, 884 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Toro v. State, 833 So. 2d 876 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).
We reject the other issues raised on appeal and affirm the denial of all claims other than the claims that were previously addressed at the evidentiary hearing.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
STRINGER and WALLACE, JJ„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bynum v. State, 932 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…an evidentiary hearing, or the need for substantial legal research. Graham v. State, 372 So. 2d 1363, 1365-66 (Fla.1979). “The need for an evidentiary hearing itself implies that [the first] three of the four factors are involved.” Jackson v. State, 908 So. 2d 1183, 1184 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). As noted in Williams, “[e]videntiary hearings are ad [*363] versarial in nature, and the rules of evidence and procedure are mystifyingly complex to all but the most sophisticated non-lawyers.” 472 So. 2d at 740. “[A]ny dou…
-
Ganote v. State, 916 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…him at that hearing and it was an abuse of discretion to refuse his request for appointed counsel. See Johnson v. State, 711 So. 2d 112, 115-16 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Rogers v. State, 702 So. 2d 607, 608 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); see also Jackson v. State, 908 So. 2d 1183 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Lee v. State, 801 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). We therefore reverse that portion of the order on appeal denying Mr. Ganóte relief based upon ground 7 and remand for a new evidentiary hearing, with instructions that counsel be…
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 472 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 1985)
- Johnson v. State, 801 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Whitman v. State, 833 So. 2d 876 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- State v. Pawle, 884 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)