STEPHEN RICHARD DIEHL, 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.
The appellate court affirmed a conviction for larceny of an automobile, holding that the defendant's lack of counsel at a preliminary hearing did not warrant reversal because no prejudice was shown, and the defendant was later represented by the public defender at trial.
No, the absence of counsel at a preliminary hearing is not grounds for reversal if no prejudice is shown and the defendant is subsequently represented by counsel at trial.
“The fact that the defendant was not represented by counsel at the preliminary hearing is not ground for reversal.”
Establishes the court's primary holding regarding the preliminary hearing.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant was convicted of larceny of an automobile. He argued that his conviction should be overturned because he was not represented by counsel …
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 Larceny Of An Automobile cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendant below appeals from his conviction of the crime of larceny of an automobile. The several contentions of the appellant having been considered in the light of the record and briefs, and no reversible error having been made to appear, we affirm. The fact that the defendant was not represented by counsel at the preliminary hearing is not ground for reversal. Di Bona v. State, Fla.App. 1960, 121 So.2d 192. No prejudice was shown to have resulted. The defendant subsequently pleaded not guilty, waived a jury and was tried before the court. The transcript of proceedings on preliminary hearing was not presented in evidence at the trial. See Brookins v. State, Fla.App.1965, 174 So.2d 578. As an insolvent, the defendant was represented at the trial by the office of the public defender. In that status he was not entitled to choose counsel. Wilder v. State, Fla.App. 1963, 156 So.2d 395. The contention of the appellant that the evidence did not establish the elements of the crime and was insufficient to support the conviction, is without merit. The trier of the facts, the trial judge in this case, was entitled to judge the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the *241witnesses and to resolve the conflicts in the evidence. We must assume the trial judge believed the credible testimony which was adverse to the defendant, and his finding of guilt of the defendant is entitled to the weight of a jury verdict. The evidence disclosed in the record, which the trial judge was entitled to accept and act upon, was ample to support his finding and adjudication of guilt in this case.
Affirmed.
(dissenting).
I must respectfully dissent since I feel that the evidence was insufficient to show that this defendant was the person who took the car. See Flowers v. State, 106 Fla. 686, 143 So. 612 (1932).
PEARSON, Judge
(dissenting).
I must respectfully dissent since I feel that the evidence was insufficient to show that this defendant was the person who took the car. See Flowers v. State, 106 Fla. 686, 143 So. 612 (1932).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hammond v. State, 264 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)…his case, which he would like to convey to his attorney. Defendant in the case at bar made similar allegations. See also Donald v. State, Fla.App.1964, 166 So. 2d 453; Douglas v. State, Fla.App.1968, 212 So. 2d 42; and Diehl v. State, Fla.App.1967, 200 So. 2d 240. B. The case at bar is similar to Brooks v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So. 2d 876. There the indigent defendant was represented at his jury trial by the public defender. He appealed his conviction pro se, requesting the removal of his court-appointed…
-
Douglas v. State, 212 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)…the defendant was entitled to appointment of counsel of his own choice. The Florida courts have consistently held that the criminally accused have no such right, and we feel bound by the reason and logic of these cases. Diehl v. State, Fla.App.1967, 200 So. 2d 240; Brooks v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So. 2d 876; Donald v. State, Fla.App.1964, 166 So. 2d 453; Wilder v. State, Fla.App.1963, 156 So. 2d 395. Therefore, the order denying post-conviction relief is affirmed. Affirmed. LILES, C. J., and PIERCE and M…
Authorities Cited
- Wilder v. State, 156 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963)
- Guido DI Bona v. State, 121 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)
- Brookins v. State, 174 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Flowers v. State, 106 Fla. 686 (Fla. 1932)
- Piper v. Landstreet, 106 Fla. 688 (Fla. 1932)