TERRY LOUIS DAVIS AND JOHN VAN BENNETT, APPELLANTS,
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.
This case addresses whether a defendant's conviction can be reversed due to joint representation by a single privately retained attorney, without an express waiver. The court held that defendants who voluntarily choose to be represented by the same private attorney cannot later complain about this choice on appeal.
No, the joint representation of two defendants by a single, privately retained attorney does not constitute fundamental error requiring reversal when the defendants voluntarily chose this arrangement.
“In the instant case, the single counsel was a private practitioner employed by the individual defendants as a voluntary act.”
This quote highlights the key factual distinction that the attorney was privately retained, not court-appointed.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellants, Davis and Bennett, were convicted of a felony based on a jury verdict. They were represented by the same attorney, who was privately r…
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 Joint Representation cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellants appeal from a felony conviction based upon a jury verdict. The only point urged for reversal is that both appellants, while defendants in the trial court, were represented by the same counsel. They now contend it was fundamental error for this representation to continue without an express waiver being made by the defendants, citing as authority Baker v. State, Fla.1967, 202 So.2d 563; Youngblood v. State, Fla.App.1968, 206 So.2d 665.
We do not find these cases to be controlling. In the cited cases the counsel involved was court-appointed. In the instant case, the single counsel was a private practitioner employed by the individual defendants as a voluntary act. They had a right to choose either independent counsel or to select one to represent them jointly. They will not now be heard to complain of this representation.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hernandez v. State, 212 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)…lso contends that he was denied a fair trial because of the representation by the samé attorney of appellant and a codefend-ant. This contention is without merit because appellant voluntarily engaged the attorney who represented him. Davis v. State, 209 So. 2d 701 (3d D.C.A.Fla.1968). Affirmed. LILES, C. J., and PIERCE, J., concur.…
-
Morgan v. State, 550 So. 2d 151 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…So. 2d 685 (Fla.1969); see also Bellows v. State, 508 So. 2d 1330 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). Furthermore, counsel was not court appointed, but was privately retained. Because they chose dual representation, appellants may not now complain. Davis v. State, 209 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968). Challenging their sentences, the Morgans allege that the trial court erred in utilizing juvenile adjudications to depart from the sentencing guidelines. An extensive record of juvenile adjudications may provide sufficient reason…
-
Hammer v. State, 213 So. 2d 619 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…that they were not represented by effective counsel because only one lawyer represented them. (The lawyer had been privately retained, not court appointed.) We affirm the judgment as to point two upon the authority of Davis v. State, Fla.App.1968, 209 So. 2d 701, and Belton v. State, Fla.App.1968, 211 So. 2d 238. We also affirm the judgment as to point one. The appellants have not demonstrated error under point one. They waived any irregularity in the selection of the jury panel when their lawyer did not c…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Baker v. State, 202 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 1967)
- Youngblood v. State, 206 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968)
- Douglas v. State, 206 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)