ANTHONY J. DAVIS
v.
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.
An indigent criminal defendant filed a pro se petition for writ of prohibition requesting a stay of prosecution, preservation of evidence, and a Nelson hearing. The court redesignated the petition as a mandamus petition regarding the defendant's pending motion to discharge court-appointed counsel but denied all other requested relief.
A pro se petition for writ of mandamus is authorized when an indigent defendant seeks to compel a ruling on a pending motion to discharge court-appointed counsel, as this enforces the constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel. The court redesignated the petition as mandamus but denied the other requested forms of relief.
[1] A criminal defendant represented by court-appointed counsel may file a pro se petition for writ of mandamus to compel the trial court to rule on a pending motion to disch…
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“Only when a pro se criminal defendant is affirmatively seeking to discharge his or her court-appointed attorney have the courts of this state not viewed the pro se pleading in which the request to discharge is made as unauthorized and a 'nullity.'”
Citation to Logan, 846 So. 2d at 476, supporting the exception to the hybrid representation rule.
Petitioner is an indigent defendant represented by court-appointed counsel in a criminal prosecution below. He filed a pro se petition with the appell…
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 Competent Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
September 14, 2022 PER CURIAM.
Petitioner, an indigent defendant who is represented by counsel below, filed a petition for writ of prohibition with this Court. He requests three forms of relief: (1) a stay of the criminal prosecution below; (2) an order directing the lower court to preserve certain information as potentially exculpatory evidence; and, (3) an order compelling the lower tribunal to conduct a Nelson hearing. See generally Nelson v. State, 274 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973).
Petitioner argues that the general rule against hybrid representation does not apply in this case because he seeks a ruling on a pending motion to discharge court-appointed counsel. See generally Sheppard v. State, 17 So. 3d 275, 279 (Fla. 2009) (describing “hybrid representation” as “simultaneously proceed[ing] pro se and with legal representation.”); see also McCray v. State, 71 So. 3d 848, 865 (Fla. 2011) (describing “hybrid representation” as “combin[ing] self-representation with representation by counsel”). We agree as to that specific form of relief. See Logan, 846 So. 2d at 476 (“Only when a pro se criminal defendant is affirmatively seeking to discharge his or her court-appointed attorney have the courts of this state not viewed the pro se pleading in which the request to discharge is made as unauthorized and a ‘nullity.’”).
Even though the petition filed with this Court is not the actual “pro se pleading in which the request to discharge [counsel] is made,” we interpret the “affirmatively seeking to discharge” language in Logan as authorizing a pro se petition for writ of mandamus when a defendant seeks to compel a ruling on a pending motion to discharge counsel. With such a petition, an indigent defendant can enforce his Constitutional right to effective representation by court-appointed counsel. See Taylor v. State, 87 So. 3d 749, 758 (Fla. 2012) (citations omitted):
The Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the right to effective assistance of counsel at all critical stages of a criminal prosecution. In cases where a defendant is indigent, that defendant is entitled to court-appointed counsel....
The right of a criminal defendant to effective assistance of counsel includes the right to competent counsel. Cf. Parkway Bank v. Fort Myers Armature Works, Inc., 658 So. 2d 646, 649 n.4 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (“[T]he denial of a clear constitutional right to trial by jury can be remedied by the issuance of an extraordinary writ.”).
Therefore, we redesignate the pro se petition for writ of prohibition as a petition for writ of mandamus. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.040(c). However, we deny all other requested relief. See Butts v. State, 47 Fla. L. Weekly D1363 (Fla. 1st DCA June 22, 2022).
KELSEY, JAY, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur. _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
_____________________________ Anthony J. Davis, pro se, Petitioner. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
R.C. v. Dep't of Agric. & Consumer Servs., 323 So. 3d 366 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)…rring in part and dissenting in part) (“It appears that an appellate court has the power to order supplemental briefing and to consider the briefs when filed. This amounts to an exception to the waiver rule cited earlier.”); see also Davis v. State, 309 So. 3d 318, 321–22 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021) (Makar, J., concurring in denial of motion to file amended brief) (“All this said, the discretion of an intermediate appellate court in a direct criminal appeal is not unlimited and must necessarily accommodate a signific…
Authorities Cited
- Nelson v. State, 274 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)
- Parkway Bank v. Fort Myers Armature Works, Inc., 658 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Sheppard v. State, 17 So. 3d 275 (Fla. 2009)
- McCRAY v. State, 71 So. 3d 848 (Fla. 2011)
- Hill v. State, 47 Fla. L. Weekly D1363 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022)