JOSEPH POWELL, 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.
A murder convict sought permission to file briefs in propria persona while simultaneously being represented by a court-appointed public defender on appeal. The Florida District Court of Appeal held that a defendant represented by counsel has no right to file additional pro se briefs absent compelling reasons and the court's express permission.
A party on appeal represented by counsel has no right to file additional pro se briefs and appellate papers absent some compelling reason and this court's explicit consent. The court struck Powell's pro se brief and denied his motion.
“a defendant represented by counsel has no absolute right to participate and represent himself and that the matter is subject to the exercise of sound discretion by the trial courts”
Established the foundational rule that trial courts have discretion to deny simultaneous counsel and pro se representation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJoseph Powell was convicted of second-degree murder and the public defender was appointed to represent him on appeal. Powell filed a separate brief in…
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 Self-Representation cases and more on FLexlaw
ON MOTION FOR A COPY OF APPELLEE’S BRIEF, AND TIME TO FILE REPLY
This motion was filed in propria persona by defendant-appellant, Joseph Powell.
The defendant was tried and found guilty of murder in the second degree. The public defender was duly directed to represent the indigent defendant on appeal. It appears that the appellate process has been tracked. The public defender has filed the appellant’s brief and the state has filed its brief in response.
However, defendant, claiming a right to represent himself independently and in addition to the efforts being expended on his behalf by the public defender, filed his separate brief. In other words, defendant contends that he is entitled both to be represented by the public defender and to be represented by himself, in propria persona, “ * * * reserving the right to let his counsel perfect those points in the brief prepared by counsel, if counsel so desires.” He rests this contention on Section 11, Declaration of Rights, Florida Constitution, F. S.A.
This contention has been answered as concerns procedures in Florida trial courts. The rule is that a defendant represented by counsel has no absolute right to participate and represent himself and that the matter is subject to the exercise of sound discretion by the trial courts.1
We believe the rule to be sound and equally applicable and needed in the appellate courts of this state. Absent some compelling reason reflected in an application for permission and absent this court’s consent for an appellant to represent himself and to be also represented by counsel, we believe that a party on appeal represented by counsel has no right, in propria persona, to file additional briefs and appellate papers. To permit this would clearly interfere with the time schedules and the filing and service of papers. Such practice would frustrate and confuse the appellate process and administration of justice.
It appearing that defendant is being adequately and effectively represented by counsel, it is ordered that:
1. Appellant’s in propria persona brief filed on October 31, 1967, is stricken sua sponte.
2. Appellant’s in propria persona motion for a copy of appellee’s brief, and time to file reply is denied.
McCAIN and REED, JJ., concur.