ALAN PRICE
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
Defense counsel may concede guilt without express client consent unless the defendant has expressly asserted that maintaining innocence is the objective of the defense.
[1] Defense counsel may concede a defendant's guilt without express prior consent if the defendant has not expressly asserted that maintaining innocence is the objective of t…
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“if a defendant 'expressly asserts that the objective of 'his defence' is to maintain innocence of the charged criminal acts, his lawyer must abide by that objective and may not override it by conceding guilt.'”
Describing the McCoy v. Louisiana standard for defense counsel's authority regarding guilt concessions
Alan Price appealed a trial court decision in a criminal case arising from Miami-Dade County Circuit Court.…
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 Sixth Amendment (Right To Counsel) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Atwater v. State, 300 So. 3d 589, 590-91 (Fla. 2020) (observing that the United States Supreme Court in McCoy v. Louisiana, ___ U.S. ___, 138 S. Ct. 1500, 200 L.Ed.2d 821 (2018) “did not hold that counsel is required to obtain the express consent of a defendant prior to conceding guilt. Instead, the [McCoy] Court held that if a defendant ‘expressly asserts that the objective of ‘his defence’ [quoting U.S. Const. amend. VI] is to maintain innocence of the charged criminal acts, his lawyer must abide by that objective and may not override it by conceding guilt.’ Because McCoy ‘vociferously insisted that he did not engage in the charged acts and adamantly objected to any admission of guilt,’ the Supreme Court found that counsel's concession of guilt violated McCoy's ‘[a]utonomy to decide that the objective of the defense is to assert innocence.’” (quoting McCoy, 138 S. Ct. at 1505, 1508, 1509)).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bingler v. Johnson, 394 U.S. 741 (U.S. 1969)…ation based on the “reasonableness” of amounts granted to bona fide students is difficult to identify. 396 F. 2d, at 263. Int. Rev. Code of 1939, c. 1, §22 (b)(3), 53 Stat. 10; see Int. Rev. Code of 1954, § 102. See, e. g., Banks v. Commissioner, 17 T. C. 1386. Compare Ti Li Loo v. Commissioner, 22 T. C. 220 (university grant for National Health Service research held taxable), with Stone v. Commissioner, 23 T. C. 254 (foundation grant held nontaxable). Gordon, Scholarship and Fellowship Grants as Income…
-
Lengsfield v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue, 241 F.2d 508 (5th Cir. 1957)
Authorities Cited
- McCoy v. Louisiana., 138 S. Ct. 1500 (U.S. 2018)
- Atwater v. State, 300 So. 3d 589 (Fla. 2020)