WILLIE C. THOMAS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
An indigent accused is not entitled to counsel at a probation violation hearing, as it is not a crucial step in the proceedings.
Appellant sought post-conviction relief, claiming he lacked counsel at his guilty plea and probation revocation hearing. The trial court found he was …
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 Crucial Stage Of Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, Willie C. Thomas, was denied relief sought by motion pursuant to Criminal Rule 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix. He appeals from the order of the trial court denying him relief. The motion stated1 that appellant was without counsel at the original proceedings wherein he plead guilty, and at the hearing wherein his probation was revoked.
The trial court, after hearing counsel for the state and movant, found from the record that appellant was represented by counsel when he plead guilty, and further found that he admitted violating the terms of his probation.
The lower court was entitled to and correctly found from the record without a formal hearing that appellant was represented by counsel at the original proceeding wherein he plead guilty.2
Even assuming that appellant was denied court-appointed counsel at the hear- ' ing wherein he was found to have violated ! the terms of -his probation, it would not af- ■' ford a basis for relief pursuant to Criminal Rule 1. Indigent accused are not entitled to counsel at non-crucial steps in the criminal proceedings,3 and a hearing to determine if probation has been violated is clearly not a crucial step in the proceedings.
Accordingly, the judgment appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Shiplett v. Louie L. Wainwright, 198 So. 2d 647 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)…s holding such language to be mandatory in character, nor has the court’s independent research of the reported cases in this State encountered a ruling construing the permissive language of the statute to be mandatory in effect. In Thomas v. State, 163 So. 2d 328 (Fla. App.2d 1964), our sister court held that hearing to determine whether a person convicted of a crime had violated the terms of [*648] his probation was not a crucial step in a criminal proceeding so as to entitle an indigent person to appointme…
-
Bryant v. State, 194 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)…284. Appellant’s allegation that he was denied a constitutional right when he was not represented or afforded the opportunity of representation by counsel on the revocation of his probation is not a ground for relief. Thomas v. State, Fla.App.1964, 163 So. 2d 328; Phillips v. State, Fla.App.1964, 165 So. 2d 246. Reversed and remanded for evidentiary hearing.…
-
Phillips v. State, 194 So. 2d 916 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed under the authority of Thomas v. State, Fla.App.1964, 163 So. 2d 328; Linton v. Cox, 358 F. 2d 859 (10th Cir. 1966); and Hamrick v. Boles, 231 F.Supp. 507 (N.D.W.Va.1964). Cf. Mason v. United States, 303 F. 2d 775 (9th Cir. 1962). [*917] We find that oral argument would serve no useful purpose and it is therefore dis…
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
- Jetson ROY v. Louie L. Wainwright, 151 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 1963)
- Arthur v. Sampson, 158 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- Baxter McLendon Ashley v. State, 158 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- Blake v. State, 163 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Emory George Tynes v. State, 163 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)