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.
Cleveland Hollingshead sought habeas corpus relief after being denied appellate counsel by the trial court, despite repeated requests. The Florida Supreme Court, following the U.S. Supreme Court's reversal in Douglas v. California, held that due process requires Hollingshead be afforded full appellate review, even though habeas corpus is not ordinarily available as an alternate remedy for appeal.
Due process of law requires that Hollingshead be afforded a full appellate review of his conviction, judgment, and sentence. Although habeas corpus is ordinarily not available as a substitute for appeal, it may be used in exceptional circumstances when orderly appellate remedy has been rendered unavailable and justice demands appropriate remedy.
“due process of law requires that the Petitioner be afforded a full appellate review of his conviction, judgment and sentence”
The court's holding establishing the due process right to appellate review when counsel was denied at trial despite requests
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHollingshead was convicted and requested counsel from the trial court for purposes of pursuing a direct appeal to review his conviction, judgment, and…
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 Due Process Of Law cases and more on FLexlaw
Cleveland Hollingshead petitioned this Court for writ of habeas corpus (see Hollingshead v. Wainwright, 177 So.2d 477). Our denial of said petition was reversed by the Supreme Court of the United States on the authority of Douglas v. People of State of California, 372 U.S. 353, 83 S.Ct. 814, 9 L.Ed.2d 811. (See Hollingshead v. Wainwright, 384 U.S. 31, 86 S.Ct. 1284, 16 L.Ed.2d 333.)
In compliance with the above mentioned decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, and to examine the truthfulness of the Petitioner’s allegations that he had been denied due process of law by the trial court in refusing to fitrnish him counsel after Petitioner repeatedly requested him to do so for the purpose of direct appeal to review the conviction, judgment and sentence in the instant 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 *578by 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 of law requires that the Petitioner be afforded a full appellate review of his conviction, judgment and sentence.
In certain exceptional circumstances when orderly appellate remedy has been rendered unavailable and an appeal within the period and in accordance with the procedure provided by law for appeals has not been afforded, yet justice demands appropriate remedy, we have held due steps must be taken to avoid deprivation of due process. See State ex rel. Ervin v. Smith, Fla., 160 So.2d 518. In accord with this concept, we do hereby order that Cleveland Hol-lingshead be afforded the opportunity of full appellate review by way of habeas corpus to be applied for in the District Court of Appeal, First District.
The Petitioner is authorized to proceed in forma pauperis. The District Court of Appeal, First District, is directed to appoint an attorney to represent the Petitioner in such proceedings.
We do not overlook the well established rule that ordinarily habeas corpus is not available as an alternate or substitute for an appeal. However, as has been previously mentioned, the instant circumstances demand that the Petitioner be afforded a full appellate review, the ordinary or orderly procedure therefor not having been afforded in this cause.
It is so ordered.
THORNAL, C. J., and THOMAS, ROBERTS, DREW and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (107 total)
-
Baggett v. Louie L. Wainwright, 229 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 1969)…and sentence, said remedy to be availed by way of habeas corpus applied for in the District Court of Appeal of the district wherein Petitioner was confined at the time of his conviction and sentence. See also, Hollingshead v. Wainwright (Fla.1967), 194 So. 2d 577. So far as it goes, the procedure suggested in the Powe decision appears adequate. However, other than directing habeas corpus as the proper means of attack, the Powe decision is silent as to the proper venue for bringing the initial proceeding to t…
-
State v. Meyer, 430 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 1983)…pportunity for direct review. All six respondents sought and were granted writs of habeas corpus to seek belated direct review of their convictions on the authority of Baggett v. Wainwright, 229 So. 2d 239 (Fla.1969), and Hollingshead v. Wainwright, 194 So. 2d 577 (Fla.1967). The district courts of appeal recognized the potential significance of a recent United States Supreme Court decision, Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 102 S.Ct. 445, 70 L.Ed.2d 509 (1981), to these cases and certified the following q…
-
Jenkins v. Louie L. Wainwright, 322 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 1975)…n adverse decision is by the appropriate appellate process and not by another petition for an extraordinary writ. The extraordinary writ procedure is not a substitute for an appeal. This has long been the law. See, e. g., Hollingshead v. Wainwright, 194 So. 2d 577 (Fla.1967); Sneed v. Mayo, 66 So. 2d 865 (Fla.1953); Futch v. Johnson, 101 Fla. 328, 134 So. 791 (1931); State v. Logan, 87 Fla. 348, 100 So. 173 (1924); Dowling v. Lee, 68 Fla. 23, 66 So. 142 (1914); Ex Parte Bowen, 25 Fla. 214, 6 So. 65 (1889). I…
Previewing 3 of 107 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353 (U.S. 1963)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Richard W. Ervin v. Smith, 160 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 1964)
- Hollingshead v. Wainwright, 384 U.S. 31 (U.S. 1966)
- Cleveland Hollingshead v. Louie L. Wainwright, 188 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 1966)
- State v. Diamond, 188 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 1966)
- Wingreen Co. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., 177 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 1965)
- Knight v. State, 177 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 1965)