JOSEPH A. BLAKE, 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.
Joseph Blake appeals his aggravated assault conviction, claiming denial of counsel at his preliminary hearing violated his constitutional right to due process and equal protection. The Florida appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that preliminary hearings are not essential to due process and therefore the failure to appoint counsel at such proceedings does not constitute a constitutional deprivation.
The court held that it is not a deprivation of constitutional rights to refuse to appoint counsel for an indigent accused at a preliminary hearing, reasoning that since preliminary hearings are not essential steps in due process, the failure to appoint counsel at such proceedings similarly does not constitute a constitutional violation.
“it is not a deprivation of accused's constitutionally protected right to due process of law and equal protection under the laws of the United States and the State of Florida, for a court to refuse to appoint counsel for an indigent accused at the preliminary hearing”
States the core holding that denying appointed counsel at preliminary hearings does not violate constitutional rights
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJoseph Blake was convicted of aggravated assault in the Criminal Court of Record in Dade County, Florida. At his preliminary hearing, Blake stated he …
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 Right To Counsel At Preliminary Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, Joseph A. Blake, was convicted in the Criminal Court of Record, Dade County, Florida of the crime of aggravated assault.
Appellant claims, inter alia, in this appeal that his conviction was illegally obtained because of the deprivation of his constitutional right to due process and equal protection of law, in that the magistrate failed to appoint counsel to represent appellant at the preliminary hearing after appellant stated that he could not afford to retain counsel.
We find appellant’s contention to be without merit. From the decisions of- the courts of this state, it is apparent that it is not a deprivation of accused’s constitutionally protected right to due process of law and equal protection under the laws of the United States and the State of Florida, for a court to refuse to appoint counsel for an indigent accused at the preliminary hearing.
It is well settled that a preliminary hearing is not an essential step in due process of law.1 If it is no deprivation of constitutional rights to fail to hold a preliminary hearing, it necessarily follows that to fail to appoint counsel for indigent accused at such a proceeding similarly does not deprive one of constitutional protection.2
To hold otherwise, would be to fly in the face of the Supreme Court of Florida’s recent policy determination in State v. Weeks, Fla. 1964,-So.2d-:
“Admittedly, there are those who seem to advocate a form of socialization of the legal profession that would provide government supplied legal services ‘from the cradle to the jail.’ Fortunately, up to this point, such a process of ‘judicare’ has not attracted general judicial endorsement. Until mandated otherwise, we have no intention of relegating existing precedents to the limbo of a jurisprudential graveyard.”
We have considered appellant’s other assignments of error, and find them to be without merit.
Accordingly, the judgment appealed is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ellis Howard v. State, 164 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)…pon authority of the rule stated in Simpson v. State, Fla.App.1964, 193 So. 2d 224, [opinion filed May 19, 1964]. Appellant’s lack of counsel at the preliminary hearing did not constitute a critical stage in this case. Blake v. State, Fla.App. 1964, 163 So. 2d 20, [opinion filed March 31, 1964]. See also Harris v. State, Fla.1964, 162 So. 2d 262, [opinion filed March 25, 1964]. Affirmed.…
-
Thomas v. State, 163 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)…64, 163 So. 2d 19, (opinion filed April 14, 1964); Ashley v. State, Fla. App.1963, 158 So. 2d 530. . Sampson v. State, Fla.App.1963, 158 So. 2d 771. . State v. Weeks, Fla.1964,-So. 2d-, (opinion filed March 4, 1964) ; Blake v. State, Fla.App.1964, 163 So. 2d 20, (opinion filed March 31, 1964).…
-
Lassiter v. State, 166 So. 2d 159 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)…this state, and hence that an accused does not have the constitutional right to the benefit of counsel at such proceedings. See Baugus v. State, 141 So. 2d 264 (Fla.1962), cert. den. 371 U.S. 879, 83 S.Ct. 153, 9 L.Ed.2d 117 (1962); Blake v. State, 163 So. 2d 20 (Fla.App.1964); Marti v. State, 163 So. 2d 506 (Fla.App.1964); Bell v. State, 164 So. 2d 28 (Fla.App.1964), and Fauls v. State, 164 So. 2d 35 (Fla.App.1964). On the other hand, the second principal ground stated by the appellant in his motion seems…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Baugus v. State, 141 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 1962)
- Guido DI Bona v. State, 121 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)
- Webster v. State, 156 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963)
- Sawyer v. United States, 371 U.S. 879 (U.S. 1962)
- Bagley v. Rhay, 371 U.S. 879 (U.S. 1962)