WILLARD CARNLEY, PEARL CARNLEY, PETITIONERS,
v.
H. G. COCHRAN, JR., DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS, 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, following a reversal by the U.S. Supreme Court, ordered a new trial for the petitioners, ensuring their right to counsel unless intelligently waived, as mandated by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Yes, the petitioners are entitled to a new trial where their right to counsel will be protected, unless they intelligently waive this right.
“The Supreme Court of the United States held that petitioners' case was one in which the assistance of counsel, unless intelligently and understanding^ waived, was a right guaranteed to petitioners by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.”
Establishes the constitutional basis for the right to counsel.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe petitioners were previously tried without counsel. The Florida Supreme Court had previously ruled on the case, but the U.S. Supreme Court reversed…
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 Intelligent Waiver cases and more on FLexlaw
Following our opinion in this case, filed September 23,1960,123 So.2d 249, this cause was considered by the Supreme Court of the United States on writ of certiorari. Our judgment was reversed and the cause remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion of that court.
Summarizing, the Supreme Court of the United States held that petitioners’ case was one in which the assistance of counsel, unless intelligently and understanding^ waived, was a right guaranteed to petitioners by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The Supreme Court further held that there was no showing in the record of such affirmative waiver by the petitioners of their right of counsel.
It thus appears clear that in order to abide by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, we must direct that the petitioners be retried with the assistance of counsel, unless intelligently waived.
For the reasons above stated, it is the judgment of this court that the petitioners be remanded to the Court of Record of Escambia County, Florida, for a new trial at which the petitioners’ constitutional right *328to counsel shall be protected in the manner herein required.
It is further ordered that costs of the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States herein taxed at $209.64 and costs of printing the record herein taxed at $417.05 be paid by Escambia County, Florida, to the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States.
It is so ordered.
ROBERTS, C. J., and TERRELL, THOMAS, DREW and HOBSON (Ret.), JJ-, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gideon v. Louie L. Wainwright, 153 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 1963)…Court in the amount of $186.96, and the cost of printing the record in that Court, in the amount of $405.56, are ordered to be paid by Bay County Florida directly to the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States. See Carnley v. Cochran, Fla., 143 So. 2d 327. It is so ordered. ROBERTS, C. J., and DREW, O’CON-NELL and HOBSON (Ret.), JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Carnley v. Cochran, 123 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 1960)