PAUL L. JEFFERSON, 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.
Paul Jefferson appealed the denial of his motion to vacate a guilty plea conviction for grand larceny, fourteen months after sentencing. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of his motion to vacate and denied his request for appointed counsel on appeal, finding his assignments of error without merit.
The court affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion to vacate and denied Jefferson's petition for appointed counsel on appeal. The court held that appellate courts are not legally obligated to furnish counsel to indigents in collateral proceedings and that Jefferson's assignments of error lacked merit.
“the law is well settled in this jurisdiction that this court is not legally obligated to furnish legal counsel to an indigent to represent him in a collateral proceeding of this nature”
Establishes that appellate courts have no mandatory duty to appoint counsel in collateral proceedings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJefferson entered a guilty plea to grand larceny and was sentenced to two years imprisonment. Fourteen months after his conviction, he filed a motion …
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 Collateral Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, upon and with advice of counsel, the public defender, entered a plea of guilty to a charge of grand larceny, in the circuit court of Jackson County, Florida, and was sentenced to two years imprisonment. Fourteen months after his conviction upon his guilty plea, the appellant filed his motion to vacate judgment and sentence pursuant to Florida Criminal Procedure Rule 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix. The appellant also filed his petition to proceed forma pauperis pro se, alleging his insolvency, but not requesting counsel to assist him. The trial court denied the motion to vacate. Notice of appeal was filed. The trial court entered a further order adjudging the defendant insolvent and directing the Clerk of the Circuit Court to prepare the necessary appeal papers for the defendant, which was complied with by the Clerk and the record-on-appeal filed in this court on January 28, 1966. The appellant filed his brief on February 12, 1966. Appellee,. State, filed its brief on March 4, 1966. March 22, 1966, appellant filed petition tO' have legal counsel appointed to pursue his. appeal, alleging that he had been adjudged insolvent.
Treating the petition for appointment of counsel first, we think it sufficient to state that the law is well settled in this jurisdiction that this court is not legally obligated to furnish legal counsel to an indigent to represent him in a collateral proceeding of this nature. Further, a study of the record on appeal and the briefs of the respective parties reveals the fact that the furnishing of counsel would be of no benefit to appellant in this cause, therefore, the *655petition for appointment of counsel is denied. Suffice it to say, the assignments of error alleged by the appellant are without merit and no good cause can be served by further expounding on the law applicable thereto.
Affirmed.
WIGGINT.ON, Acting C. J., and STUR-GIS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Harper v. State, 201 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 1967)…nted to represent him on direct appeal. The trial judge denied this request, stating that under Florida law an indigent defendant has no right to appointed counsel for direct appeal. In so ruling, the judge apparently relied upon Jefferson v. State, 184 So. 2d 654 (Fla.App.), a case cited by the State Attorney. But the Jefferson case was inapplicable. It merely held that an indigent is not entitled to appointed counsel when appealing from a collateral proceeding such as Rule One. The reliance on Jefferson, th…