JOHN MATTHEW WEEKS, 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.
The Florida District Court of Appeal held that an indigent defendant has a constitutional right to appointed counsel on appellate review of collateral attacks on his conviction, not merely on direct appeals. The court rejected the State's argument that the right to counsel extends only to direct appeals from criminal convictions.
An indigent defendant has a constitutional right to appointed counsel on appellate review of collateral proceedings attacking his conviction on constitutional grounds, not merely on direct appeals. The State's motion to vacate the appointment of counsel was denied.
“a failure to provide counsel for an indigent on a direct review of his conviction is a violation of his constitutional rights, we think it reasonable to conclude that it would be no less a violation of those rights to deny him counsel on appellate review of collateral proceedings attacking his conviction on constitutional grounds”
Establishes the court's core holding that counsel rights extend to collateral attacks on conviction
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWeeks, convicted of armed robbery in Dade County Criminal Court, filed a motion under Florida Criminal Procedure Rule #1 to vacate his conviction and …
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 Motion To Vacate Judgment Of Conviction And Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant Weeks filed in the Criminal Court of Record, Dade County, Florida, a motion under Criminal Procedure Rule #1, 31 F.S.A., to vacate his judgment of conviction and sentence for the crime of armed robbery. The motion was denied and appellant took this appeal from the order denying his motion to vacate. Subsequent to a denial of the motion, the trial court adjudicated the appellant insolvent.
After the notice of appeal was filed with this court, the appellant requested the appointment of legal counsel to assist him in the preparation and handling of his appeal. The motion was granted and this court temporarily relinquished jurisdiction to the criminal court of record for the purpose of designating the Public Defender of Dade County or other appropriate counsel to represent appellant on this appeal. Cf. Donald v. State, Fla.App.1963, 154 So.2d 357.
The state has now moved to vacate this court’s order relinquishing jurisdiction for the purpose of the appointment of counsel upon the ground that the appeal now pending before this court is to review an order denying a motion which collaterally attacks the judgment of conviction and sentence as contrasted to a direct appeal from the judgment of conviction and sentence rendered in the criminal case. It is the state’s position that an indigent’s right to appointment of counsel to represent him in an appellate court is confined to the perfecting of a direct appeal from the original judgment of conviction and sentence and not appeals from orders which resulted from proceedings collaterally attacking such judgment. We have been unable to find any authority subsequent to Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353, 83 S.Ct. 814, 9 L.Ed.2d 811,. which requires or excuses the appointment of counsel under the circumstances delineated here. It is true, as pointed out by the state, that the United States Supreme Court, in Douglas v. California, supra, made pointed references to the fact that it was not confronted in that case with the denial of counsel for the preparation of “a petition for discretionary or mandatory review beyond the stage in the appellate process at *38which the claims have once been presented by a lawyer and passed upon by an appellate court.” The court further indicated that its opinion dealt only with the “first appeal” granted as a matter of right to all persons.
The state concludes that the language of . the Supreme Court of the United States in the Douglas case, supra; and in Gilpin v. United States, 6th Cir., 265 F.2d 203; Tubbs v. United States, 10th Cir., 249 F.2d 37; United States v. Caufield, 7th Cir., 207 F.2d 278; Donovan v. United States, 10th Cir., 205 F.2d 557; Richardson v. United States, 10th Cir., 199 F.2d 333; and Crowe v. United States, 4th Cir., 175 F.2d 799, is authority for the proposition that an indigent, convicted of a crime, has a constitutional right to representation by counsel on direct review of his conviction but not in proceedings that collaterally attack the validity of the conviction and sentence. This is the construction given the requirements of § 2255, Title 28, U.S.C., by the United States courts of appeal before the Gideon,1 Douglas,2 Draper,3 and other decisions recently rendered by the Supreme Court of the United States. Florida Criminal Procedure Rule '#1 was modelled after § 2255, Title 28, U.S.C.
We are reluctant to add to an already onerous burden thrust upon the taxpayers of Florida. At the same time, we would be less than discerning if we did not recognize the broad implications in the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States treating this subject.
Since it has been decided that a failure to provide counsel for an indigent on a direct review of his conviction is a violation of his constitutional rights, we think it reasonable to conclude that it would be no less a violation of those rights to deny him counsel on appellate review of collateral proceedings attacking his conviction on constitutional grounds. We conclude that the motion to vacate should be denied.
It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Weeks, 166 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 1964)…t decide whether an indigent prisoner is entitled to the assistance of counsel as a matter of right upon an appeal from an adverse ruling in a collateral assault on his conviction and sentence. The decision under review is Weeks v. State, Fla.App., 156 So. 2d 36. The state has appealed and simultaneously petitioned for certiorari. The District Court has sua sponte certified its decision to us as one which “passes upon a question * * * of great public interest.” We take jurisdiction of the petition for certi…
-
Webster v. State, 156 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963)…behalf of appellant as an incident to the hearing on the motion to vacate, and whether a similar duty devolves on this court with respect to the appeal proceedings. We are not unmindful of the decisions of our sister courts in Weeks v. [*896] State, 156 So. 2d 36 (Fla.App.1963), and Dias v. State, 155 So. 2d 662 (Fla.App.1963), holding' that an insolvent appellant is entitled to be furnished counsel on an appeal from an order denying his motion to vacate under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, and it is the pol…
-
Dias v. State, 155 So. 2d 662 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)…im and not, as here, from an order of the court denying motion to vacate under Criminal Procedure Rule 1. Under date of July 16, 1963, our sister ■court, the Third District Court of Appeal, filed an opinion in the case of Weeks v. State of Florida, 156 So. 2d 36, wherein it granted a motion of the defendant-appellant Weeks similar to the one here considered. The appellate court, in granting the motion, temporarily relinquished jurisdiction to the criminal court of record for the purpose of designating the P…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (U.S. 1963)
- Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353 (U.S. 1963)
- Draper v. Washington, 372 U.S. 487 (U.S. 1963)
- Crowe v. United States, 175 F.2d 799 (4th Cir. 1949)
- Richardson v. United States, 199 F.2d 333 (10th Cir. 1952)
- United States v. Caufield, 207 F.2d 278 (7th Cir. 1953)
- Donald v. State, 154 So. 2d 357 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- Donovan v. United States, 205 F.2d 557 (10th Cir. 1953)
- Tubbs v. United States, 249 F.2d 37 (10th Cir. 1957)
- Gilpin v. United States, 265 F.2d 203 (6th Cir. 1959)