SYLVIO MONTINA, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed summary denial of most ineffective assistance of counsel claims but reversed the denial of one claim and remanded for appointment of postconviction counsel and a new hearing, holding that trial courts must determine the need for counsel in postconviction proceedings and resolve doubts in favor of appointment.
Although there is no absolute right to counsel in postconviction relief proceedings, trial courts must determine the need for counsel and resolve any doubts in favor of appointing counsel to the defendant.
[1] Trial courts in postconviction relief proceedings must determine the need for counsel and resolve any doubts in favor of appointing counsel to the defendant, even though…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Although there is no absolute right to counsel in post-conviction relief proceedings, the [postconviction court] must determine the need for counsel and resolve any doubts in favor of the appointment of counsel for the defendant.”
Citing Graham v. State for the standard governing appointment of counsel in postconviction proceedings.
Sylvio Montina appealed an order summarily denying various postconviction ineffective assistance of counsel claims and denying his sixth claim after 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 Right To Counsel In Post-Conviction Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
Sylvio Montina appeals an order summarily denying various postconviction claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, an order denying one postconviction claim after an evidentiary hearing (Montina’s claim six), and the denial or failure to address Montina’s request for appointment of counsel prior to (or at) that evidentiary hearing. We affirm the summary denial order without further discussion, but agree with Montina that the trial court erred by failing to consider his request for the appointment of counsel to aid in the preparation and presentation of evidence on his sixth claim. See Graham v. State, 372 So.2d 1363, 1365 (Fla.1979) (“[AJlthough there is no absolute right to counsel in post-conviction relief proceedings, the [postconviction court] must determine the need for counsel and resolve any doubts in favor of the appointment of counsel for the defendant.”) (emphasis added). It is also clear, based upon the Graham factors, that counsel should have been appointed in this ease. Accordingly, we reverse the denial of Montina’s sixth claim and remand for the appointment of postconviction counsel, and for a new hearing on the claim.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.
TORPY and LAWSON, JJ., concur.
GRIFFIN, J., dissents, without opinion.