JOHN W. WATSON, JR., 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.
Watson appealed the denial of post-conviction relief under Criminal Rule No. 1, arguing he was denied his right to counsel when a public defender was appointed immediately as trial commenced without opportunity for preparation. The court held that the right to counsel includes a reasonable pre-trial period for an attorney to confer with the accused and prepare, which was not satisfied here.
The right to counsel includes being afforded a reasonable time before trial to obtain or have appointed a lawyer who can confer with the accused and prepare for trial. Appointment of counsel immediately as trial commences does not satisfy this requirement, and Watson was subjected to trial without adequate representation.
“The right of a criminal defendant to be represented by counsel includes being afforded a reasonable time before trial within which to obtain a lawyer or to have one appointed a reasonable time before trial, in order that the attorney may have an opportunity to confer with the accused and to prepare for trial.”
Establishes the core holding that counsel must have pre-trial preparation time, not merely be present at trial
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWatson and co-defendant Mosley were charged with breaking and entering and grand larceny. Mosley had retained counsel (Ridarsick), but Watson had none…
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 Gideon V. Wainwright cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from an order denying an application for relief under Criminal Rule No. 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix, by a party serving a sentence following conviction for breaking and entering and grand larceny. The record in this case shows a basis for relief under the rule, and we so hold.
When the original case came on for trial it involved the appellant John Watson, Jr. and a co-defendant, Nathan Mosley. Mosley was represented by an attorney, Mr. Ridarsick, but Watson was without counsel. A suggestion that Mosley’s attorney should act for both defendants was rejected when it was brought out that their positions were hostile. Thereupon the court called on one of the public defenders 1 who was present to represent Watson, and the trial proceeded forthwith.2
The right of a criminal defendant to be represented by counsel includes being afforded a reasonable time before trial within which to obtain a lawyer or to have one appointed a reasonable time before trial, in order that the attorney may have an op*888portunity to confer with the accused and to prepare for trial. The time so required may vary, and will depend on the nature and complexities of the case. Such a requirement is not met when the lawyer is appointed as the trial commences. See House v. Mayo, 324 U.S. 42, 65 S.Ct. 517, 89 L.Ed. 739; Christie v. State, 94 Fla. 469, 114 So. 450; French v. State, Fla.App. 1964, 161 So.2d 879; 14 Am.Jur., Criminal Law § 172. Here there was no waiver of counsel, and under the circumstances the defendant was subjected to trial without representation as called for under the Gideon case.3
The state points to the failure of the-defendant’s attorney to request a continuance. Appellant replies that a continuance-could not reasonably have been expected, because under the law at that time the-defendant was not entitled to have an attorney appointed in this type of case and could have been ordered to trial without, counsel.
Accordingly, the order appealed from is. reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith and as provided for under Criminal Rule No. 1_
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Barton, 194 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 1967)…pleasure — or opinion — of a judge. The rule that questions open upon appeal must be raised by appeal is a rule of law, and . it is a sound and solid rule. * Cf. French v. State, Fla.App.1964, 161 So. 2d 879, 881. . Watson v. State, Fla.App.1964, 169 So. 2d 887.…
-
Buchanan v. State, 184 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)…counsel did not have adequate time to prepare for trial. This allegation was insufficient under the rule stated in McCray v. State, Fla.App. 1966, 181 So. 2d 729; and State v. Daniels, Fla.App.1965, 178 So. 2d 44. Cf., Watson v. State, Fla.App.1964, 169 So. 2d 887. Affirmed.…
-
McCRAY v. State, 181 So. 2d 729 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)…eme Court pursuant to said constitutional provision. Affirmed. JOHNSON, J., concurs. CARROLL, DONALD K, J., dissents. . Solomon v. State, 138 So. 2d 79 (Fla.App.1st, 1962); Brooks v. State, 176 So. 2d 116 (Fla.App.1st, 1965). . Watson v. State, 169 So. 2d 887 (Fla.App. 3d, 1964). . Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963). . See Simpson v. State, Fla.App.1st, 181 So. 2d 185, December 14, 1965. . State v. Daniels, Fla.App.2d, 178 So. 2d 44, August 27, 1965. . Goforth v. U…1 / 2
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)
- House v. Mayo, 324 U.S. 42 (U.S. 1945)
- Christie v. State, 94 Fla. 469 (Fla. 1927)
- French v. State, 161 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)