MORRIS MORGAN FALAGAN, 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.
Morris Morgan Falagan, an indigent defendant, appealed an order denying his motion for discharge under Florida Criminal Procedure Rule 1, filing petitions for mandamus and habeas corpus. The court affirmed the lower court's order, holding that Rule 1 proceedings do not entitle an indigent defendant to appointed counsel as a constitutional right, and finding no merit in appellant's claims.
The court held that Rule 1 proceedings do not constitute a step in a criminal prosecution within the Sixth Amendment, and therefore an indigent defendant is not entitled as an absolute right to appointed counsel for such appeals. The court affirmed the denial of the motion for discharge, finding no errors by the trial court and no abuse of discretion.
“proceedings pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule 1, do not constitute a step in a criminal prosecution within the contemplation of the Sixth Amendment, United States Constitution, and therefore the defendant, although indigent, is not entitled, as an absolute organic right, to the appointment of counsel”
Establishes that Rule 1 proceedings fall outside constitutional protections for appointed counsel
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFalagan filed a petition for writ of mandamus or habeas corpus and an affidavit of insolvency, requesting appointed counsel for his appeal. He also ap…
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 Indigent Defendant'S Right To Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendant filed a petition for writ of mandamus or in the alternative for a writ of habeas corpus. He also filed affidavit of insolvency and requested the ap*62pointment of counsel to represent him in his appeal. The defendant filed notice of appeal, also, from the order of the Circuit Court denying his motion for “discharge”, pursuant to Florida Criminal Procedure Rule 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix.
This court, in an abundance of precaution, did on the 22nd of December, 1965, relinquish jurisdiction of said cause to the circuit court for the sole purpose of that court appointing counsel to represent the interest of the defendant on this appeal. The circuit court appointed the Public Defender to represent the defendant. After reviewing the defendant’s case in the light of the errors alleged by the defendant to exist, the Public Defender, who is an able attorney, filed his motion for leave to withdraw as counsel and as grounds therefor, says that after such examination of the records, he cannot in good faith and conscience file (find) assignments of error, nor can he find any merit in the appellant’s main contentions.
The appellant, in his own proper person, has heretofore, on December 9, 1965, filed his brief in support of his appeal from the order denying him relief under the Rule 1 proceedings.
We think this entire matter may be disposed of at one time. The Public Defender should be congratulated for his forthright statement of why he wanted to be relieved of prosecuting an appeal which had no merit. He should be relieved of this duty. This motion of the Public Defender, also removes the necessity for this court to be concerned or cautious about whether the defendant should have counsel appointed to represent him on this appeal. We do not see the necessity for any further appointment of counsel by this court or the circuit court.
The Supreme Court of Florida in State v. Weeks, 166 So.2d 892, 896, 897 (1964) has clearly stated that proceedings pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule 1, do not constitute a step in a criminal prosecution within the contemplation of the Sixth Amendment, United States Constitution, and therefore the defendant, although indigent, is not entitled, as an absolute organic right, to the appointment of counsel. The Public Defender examined the record in the case sub judice and advises this court, in effect, that the appeal is without merit. Therefore, the assistance of counsel is not essential to accomplish a fair and thorough prosecution of the prisoner’s claim.
We now come to the petitioner’s main appeal. Whether it be considered as a petition for writ of habeas corpus or mandamus or straight appeal, the primary purpose and the alleged grounds therefor, are the same. The prisoner wants “out”.
We have given due consideration to the petition of the appellant and read his brief, and while the cases cited by the appellant in his brief constitute good law, neither of the cited cases fit the factual situation here.
We fail to find errors on the part of the trial court or any abuse of discretion. We find no merit in any of the contentions of the appellant, and therefore, the petition for mandamus and petition for writ of habeas corpus, are denied and the order appealed is
Affirmed.
WIGGINTON, Acting C. J., and STUR-GIS, J., concur.