JOHN TILDON ALFORD, PETITIONER,
v.
LOUIE L. WAINWRIGHT, 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.
John Alford petitioned for habeas corpus challenging his convictions on the grounds that he was denied the right to counsel. The Florida Supreme Court, guided by the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Carnley v. Cochran and Gideon v. Wainwright, vacated his convictions and ordered a new trial.
Alford's convictions and sentences were vacated and he was remanded for a new trial because he was denied his right to counsel. The trial court failed to explain his right to counsel, failed to offer to appoint counsel, and Alford did not intelligently waive this right, particularly given his low intelligence level and prior refusal of counsel at the preliminary hearing.
“the petitioner was not financially able to employ counsel”
Establishes that Alford could not afford to hire his own attorney
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAlford entered guilty pleas and was convicted and incarcerated. At the time of his guilty pleas, he was not financially able to employ counsel. Althou…
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 And Understanding Waiver cases and more on FLexlaw
As a result of a petition for habeas corpus filed in this Court by John Tildón Alford we appointed Honorable Ernest E. Mason, one of the Judges of the Circuit Court, First Judicial Circuit, to receive evidence and make recommendations to this Court on the following issues:
1. Whether petitioner at the time of entry of his pleas of guilty was able to employ counsel;
2. Whether petitioner requested and was refused counsel; and
3. Whether petitioner intelligently and understanding^ waived the right to counsel.
Acting promptly and with due care the Commissioner appointed R. H. Merritt, Esquire, to the Pensacola Bar, to represent petitioner in the hearing held by the Commissioner pursuant to our order. Mr. Merritt performed this appointment without compensation. Mr. Merritt’s actions are in keeping with the highest traditions of the legal profession. We offer our commendation to him.
We also express our appreciation to the Commissioner for the splendid service he has rendered this Court in this matter.
*2In his report the Commissioner answered the questions we posed as follows:
1. That at the time of entry of the pleas of guilty, pursuant to which he was judged guilty and is now incarcerated, the petitioner was not financially able to employ counsel.
2. That petitioner did not request the appointment of counsel of the trial court and was therefore not refused counsel by that court.
3. That petitioner did not intelligently and understanding^ waive the right to counsel.
On the issue of waiver of right to counsel the Commissioner found that at a preliminary hearing, held in a justice of the peace court on one or more of the charges here involved, the petitioner had requested and been refused appointment of counsel and that because of his low intelligence level this justified petitioner in concluding that it would be futile to request counsel be appointed for him by the trial court. The Commissioner further found that the nature of the charges required a full explanation thereof by the trial court, explanation by that court of petitioner’s right to counsel and an offer by the court to appoint counsel, none of which was done. The Commissioner further found that the petitioner did in fact desire appointment of counsel at all times.
After reciting the above, and other findings, the Commissioner recommended that the judgments of conviction and sentences entered thereon be vacated and petitioner be remanded for new trial on the charges which led to such convictions.
The decisions of the United States Supreme Court in Carnley v. Cochran, 1962, 369 U.S. 506, 82 S.Ct. 884, 8 L.Ed.2d 70, and Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799, compel that we accept the recommendations of the Commissioner and require that the judgments and sentences under which the petitioner is held be vacated, and the petitioner be remanded for another trial on the charges which led to his detention.
It is so ordered.
DREW, C. J., and ROBERTS, THORN-AL and CALDWELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
King v. State, 157 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)…Ed. 1367 (1945); Uveges v. Pennsylvania, 335 U.S. 437, 69 S.Ct. 184, 93 L.Ed. 127 (1948); Carnley v. Cochran, 369 U.S. 506, 82 S.Ct. 884, 8 L.Ed.2d 70 (1962). The Florida Supreme Court has held to the same effect. See Alford v. Wainwright, Fla.1963, 156 So. 2d 1. In each instance where an accused appears in court without a lawyer, the court should advise him of his constitutional right to the assistance of counsel and determine whether or not he is able to employ a lawyer to represent him. If the accused is…1 / 2
-
Mason v. State, 176 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 1965)…d was permitted to prove that he was motivated by fear in rejecting certain federal constitutional rights. We ourselves have recognized the importance of an express offer of counsel in its relation to the waiver problem. Alford v. Wainwright, Fla., 156 So. 2d 1. Alford involved post-conviction habeas corpus. In an adversary hearing our commissioner found that an indigent had requested, and bad been refused, counsel at a preliminary hearing. This justified the defendant’s conclusion that it would be futile…
-
Walls v. State, 199 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 1967)…t out in the following cases: Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799; Carnley v. Cochran, 369 U.S. [506] 508, 82 S.Ct. 884, 8 L.Ed.2d 70; Rice v. Olson, 324 U.S. 786, 65 S.Ct. 989, 89 L.Ed. 1367; Alford v. Wainwright, [Fla.] 156 So. 2d 1, Mason v. State of Florida, [Fla.] 176 So. 2d 76.” He concludes with a recommendation that the judgment of conviction and sentence entered by the Hillsborough County Criminal Court of Record on December 22, 1961, be vacated. The findings of the Co…
Authorities Cited
- Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (U.S. 1963)
- Carnley v. Cochran, 369 U.S. 506 (U.S. 1962)
- The State of Fla. ex rel. THE Fla. BAR v. Youngblood, 153 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 1963)