ADOLFO FERNANDEZ, PETITIONER,
v.
R. O. CULVER, AS STATE PRISON CUSTODIAN, RESPONDENT
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 Florida Supreme Court denied a petition for habeas corpus, holding that the petitioner was not denied his right to counsel of his choice or sufficient time to consult counsel. The court found that the petitioner's claims were previously litigated and affirmed in a prior appeal, and he failed to demonstrate prejudice.
No, the petitioner was not denied his right to counsel of his choice or a reasonable time to consult counsel. The court found that the issue was previously decided against him on appeal and that he failed to show any prejudice from the representation he received.
“It appears, however, that petitioner had engaged a law firm to defend him, that there was no agreement that he would be defended by a particular member of the firm, and that he did not contend that he wanted to be represented by a member of the firm other than the one who was defending him until his- trial was well under way.”
Establishes the court's finding regarding the petitioner's engagement of counsel and the timing of his specific request.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe petitioner, convicted of breaking and entering and grand larceny, sought a writ of habeas corpus, alleging denial of his right to counsel of his c…
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 Of Choice cases and more on FLexlaw
HOBSON, Justice.
This matter arises upon petition for habeas corpus. Petitioner, convicted of breaking and entering and of grand larceny, claims that he was denied the right to counsel of his own choice and that he was not allowed a reasonable time to consult such counsel. It appears, however, that petitioner had engaged a law firm to defend him, that there was no agreement that he would be defended by a particular member of the firm, and that he did not contend that he wanted to be represented by a member of the firm other than the one who was defending him until his-trial was well under way. Moreover, petitioner raised this same point in appealing his conviction to this court, and the matter is foreclosed against him by our affirmance of the conviction in Fernandez v. State, Fla., 83 So. 2d 781. See also Smith v. U. S., 53 App.D.C. 53, 288 F. 259; People v. Head, 9 Cal.App.2d 647, 50 P. 2d 832; and 23 C.J. S. Criminal Law § 979 page 318. Finally, petitioner has not shown that his defense was not ably conducted by counsel who defended him, and accordingly no prejudice whatever to his rights has been shown.
The writ heretofore issued must be, and it is hereby, quashed and the petitioner must be remanded to the appropriate authorities. It is so ordered.
TERRELL, C. J., and THOMAS, .DREW and O’CONNELL, TT., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Teate v. State, 83 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 1955)
- Adolfo Fernandez v. State, 83 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 1955)