CLEVELAND HOLLINGSHEAD, PETITIONER,
v.
LOUIE L. WAINWRIGHT, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS, RESPONDENT
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.
The Florida Supreme Court addressed a petitioner's claim of being denied due process by the trial court's refusal to provide counsel for a direct appeal. The court appointed a commissioner to hold an evidentiary hearing on the petitioner's allegations.
The court did not directly rule on the due process claim but ordered an evidentiary hearing to determine the truth of the petitioner's allegations regarding the denial of counsel for appeal.
“The Petitioner alleges, inter alia, that he "has been denied due process of law by the trial court in refusing to furnish counsel, after repeatedly being requested by Petitioner for the purpose of direct appeal to review the conviction, judgment and sentence in instant case."”
This quote states the core allegation of the petitioner regarding the denial of due process and counsel for appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe petitioner alleged he was denied due process because the trial court refused to furnish him with counsel for his direct appeal after he repeatedly…
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 On Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
The Petitioner alleges, inter alia, that he “has been denied due process of law by the trial court in refusing to furnish counsel, after repeatedly being requested by Petitioner for the purpose of direct appeal to review the conviction, judgment and sentence in instant case.” The return denies Petitioner’s allegations that he requested his public defender to take an appeal that his public defender refused to file any appellate materials other than a notice of appeal; and his allegation that he wrote a letter to the Court seeking an attorney on his direct appeal. The return further suggests that Petitioner be afforded an evi-dentiary hearing so that he may have the opportunity to prove those allegations aforementioned.
The Honorable Woodrow Melvin, a Circuit Judge of the First Judicial Circuit of Florida, is appointed a Commissioner to take such testimony as shall be deemed necessary as to the Petitioner’s allegations and thereafter with all convenient speed report the same, together with his findings and recommendations to this Court.
The Petitioner is authorized to proceed in forma pauperis. The Commissioner is authorized to appoint an attorney to represent Petitioner in these proceedings.
It is so ordered.
THORNAL, C. J., and ROBERTS, O’CONNELL, CALDWELL and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Cleveland Hollingshead v. Louie L. Wainwright, 194 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 1967)…t case, this Court on July 29, 1966 appointed Honorable Woodrow M. Melvin, Circuit Judge of the First Judicial Circuit, commissioner to take testimony upon the factual issues presented [*578] by the Petitioner. (See Hollingshead v. Wainwright, Fla., 188 So. 2d 788.) Upon consideration of the report submitted by the able commissioner in which he found the allegations of the Petitioner to be true in point of fact and recommended an appellate review of Petitioner’s conviction, it is our opinion that due process…
-
State v. Chapman Levi Creighton, 469 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 1985)…s of Florida continued to operate under the assumption that the state’s right of appeal in criminal cases was governed by statute. See, e.g., Carroll v. State, 251 So. 2d 866 (Fla.1971); Jenkins v. Lyles, 223 So. 2d 740 (Fla.1969); State v. Diamond, 188 So. 2d 788, 789 (Fla.1966); State v. Harris, 136 So. 2d 633 (Fla.1962); State v. Schroeder, 112 So. 2d 257 (Fla.1959); State v. Shouse, 177 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965); Balikes v. Speleos, 173 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965). Cases decided after the 1972 revis…
-
State v. Herzig, 208 So. 2d 619 (Fla. 1968)…s v. People of the State of California, supra. [Douglas v. People of the State of California, 1963, 372 U.S. 353, 83 S.Ct. 814, 9 L.Ed.2d 811] Hollingshead v. Wainwright, 1966 [Fla., 177 So. 2d 477], 384 U.S. 31, 86 S.Ct. 1284, 16 L.Ed.2d 333 [Fla., 188 So. 2d 788; 194 So. 2d 577], As a result it would appear that now any indigent found guilty of a felony in a trial court is entitled, as a matter of right, to counsel not only on direct appeal but also on appeal from a denial of post-conviction relief. By anal…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence