JOSEPH COLE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Joseph Cole appealed the denial of his Rule 1 motion for relief from a conviction for receiving and concealing stolen property, claiming he was involuntarily absent from portions of his trial. The court affirmed the denial, holding that Cole knowingly acquiesced in his attorney's request to exclude him from testimony regarding his mental condition.
The court held that while the requirement under § 914.01 Fla. Stat. that a defendant be present at all proceedings in a felony prosecution is mandatory, it may be waived in noncapital felony cases. Cole's knowing acquiescence in his absence, evidenced by his acceptance without objection and affirmative consent by nodding to his attorney, constituted a valid waiver.
“the requirement is one which may be waived by a defendant in a noncapital felony case”
Establishes that while the defendant's presence requirement is mandatory, it is not absolute and can be waived in noncapital felonies.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCole was convicted of receiving and concealing stolen property. During trial, he was excluded from the courtroom while testimony from his mother and a…
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 Waiver Of Right To Be Present cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant seeks reversal of an order of the criminal court of record denying his motion for relief under Criminal Procedure Rule 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix after an evidentiary hearing. This is a third appearance of this matter here. On March 9, 1965, this court affirmed the conviction of the appellant of the crimes of receiving and of concealing stolen property. Cole v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 898. Thereafter the defendant filed a motion in the trial court for relief from the judgment of conviction under Criminal Procedure Rule 1. He appealed to this court from an order summarily denying the motion. We *481reversed, and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the motion. Cole v. State, Fla. App.1966, 181 So.2d 698. After an eviden-tiary hearing the trial court again denied the defendant’s motion, and this appeal followed.
The ground of the defendant’s Rule 1 motion with which this appeal is concerned was that “Testimony was taken while appellant was involuntarily absent from court.” In the order appealed from the court found: “That the defendant, Joseph Cole, knowingly acquiesced in his attorney’s actions in having the Defendant excluded from the court room during portions of the trial involving the issue of insanity.”
The record reveals that the defendant was excluded from the court room while certain testimony was being given by his mother and by a doctor relating to his mental condition, and that such was done at the instance and request of the defendant’s attorney on the expressed theory that it was in the defendant’s interest that he not be present when such testimony was presented.
At the evidentiary hearing on the Rule 1 motion, on the issue of whether the defendant knowingly waived his right to be present at such times, or knowingly acquiesced in being absent, the evidence was not without conflict but there was ample evidence to support the above quoted finding of the trial judge.
The requirement of § 914.01 Fla. Stat., F.S.A., that “In all prosecutions for a felony the defendant shall be present: * * * (4) At all proceedings before the court when the jury is present,” is mandatory, and is equally applicable in such a prosecution whether the trial is before a jury or is before the court without a jury. However, the requirement is one which may be waived by a defendant in a noncapital felony case. See Mulvey v. State, Fla.1949, 41 So.2d 156; Lowman v. State, 80 Fla. 18, 85 So. 166. Here, from the trial record and the hearing on the Rule 1 motion, there was evidence upon which the trial judge could, and no doubt did rely, which adequately established that the defendant was present when the matter of his exclusion from the court room during the taking of certain testimony was the subject of discussion between counsel and the court; that thereby he was made aware of his right to be present and of the reason for the suggestion or request of his attorney that he be excluded during the taking of such testimony; and that the defendant’s acquiescence therein was sufficiently made to appear by the showing that he accepted without objection the suggestion of his attorney, approved by the court, that he be absent from the court room during the testimony of his mother and the doctor bearing on his mental condition, and from the fact that the defendant affirmatively indicated his consent thereto by nodding to his attorney.
We conclude, therefore, that reversible error has not been shown and that the order appealed from should be affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Melendez, 244 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 1971)…of abuse of this doctrine, its application has been, and should be, limited to those cases in which the defendant, upon his reappearance at his trial, acquiesces in or ratifies the actions taken by his counsel during his absence. See Cole v. State, 199 So. 2d 480 (Fla.App. 3rd, 1967). In Henzel v. State, 212 So. 2d 92 (FIa.App.3rd, 1968), certiorari denied 393 U.S. 1085, 89 S.Ct. 870, 21 L.Ed.2d 778, rehearing denied 394 U.S. 967, 89 S.Ct. 1303, 22 L.Ed.2d 570, the District Court of Appeal, Third District, i…
-
Henzel v. State, 212 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…se, that a defendant has the right to be present at all proceedings before the court, whether with or without a jury, whereby prosecution for the commission of a felony is carried on. Section 914.01(4), Fla.Stat., supra; Cole v. State, Fla.App.1967, 199 So. 2d 480. Nevertheless, it is well settled that, in non-capital cases, this right may be waived by the defendant, and voluntary absence has been held to constitute such waiver. Mulvey v. State, Fla. 1949, 41 So. 2d 156. Likewise, a defendant’s subsequent acq…
-
Simmons v. State, 334 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…he jury was sworn. It is true that the defendant must be present at every essential part of the trial unless he has, by his own actions, waived the right. See CrPR 3.180; State v. Melendez, Fla.1971, 244 So. 2d 137; and Cole v. State, Fla. App.1967, 199 So. 2d 480. The issue was first raised upon motion for new trial. The record does show that immediately after the swearing of the jury, the defendant announced, by his counsel, that he was ready to proceed. While the record of the swearing of the jury does not…
Authorities Cited
- Lowman v. State, 80 Fla. 18 (Fla. 1920)
- Mulvey v. State, 41 So.2d 156 (Fla. 1949)
- Cole v. State, 181 So. 2d 698 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Sabo v. Smith, 172 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Cole v. State, 172 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)