SAMUEL BELTON, 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.
Samuel Belton appealed his conviction challenging the appointment of the same counsel to represent him and co-defendants after an adjudication of insolvency. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that reversal is required only when an indigent defendant makes a demand or request for independent counsel, which Belton failed to do.
When an indigent defendant makes a demand or request for independent counsel, reversal and new trial are required if not granted. However, without such a demand or request for independent counsel, and absent a conflict in the positions of defendants or prejudice in the record, the appointment of the same counsel to multiple indigent defendants is not fundamental error warranting reversal.
“when there is a demand or request for independent counsel an indigent defendant is entitled to a reversal and a new trial if same is not accorded in the trial court”
Establishes the standard: reversal required only upon demand for independent counsel
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBelton was convicted in trial court and appointed counsel was assigned to represent him and others who had been adjudicated insolvent. Belton did not …
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 appellant, defendant in the trial court, was convicted and judgment and sentence was entered accordingly. The only point preserved for review on this appeal is alleged error in appointing the same counsel to represent the appellant and others, after an adjudication of insolvency. The appellant relied on Baker v. State, Fla. 1967, 202 So.2d 563; Youngblood v. State, Fla.App.1968, 206 So.2d 665, for reversal, both of which decisions were subsequent to the appointment in the trial court and the trial of this matter.
The record fails to reveal any objection by the appellant to the joint representation by the appointed counsel or a request for independent counsel. In Baker v. State, supra, a demand or request for independent counsel was made and the Supreme Court of Florida held that this required separate counsel for indigent defendants, citing Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680, wherein one of the two defendants objected to the trial court’s appointing his counsel to represent another co-defendant. In Youngblood v. State, supra, no demand or request was made but, notwithstanding this, the Fourth District Court of Appeal found it was error to appoint the same counsel to represent joint indigents.
We decline to follow Youngblood v. State, supra, and believe it is distinguishable from Baker v. State, supra; and hold that when there is a demand or request for independent counsel an indigent defendant is entitled to a reversal and a new trial if same is not accorded in the trial court. However, without a demand or request for independent counsel [and there not appearing a conflict in the positions of the several defendants or prejudice in the record] we will not find fundamental error and will not reverse, in accordance with the general authorities on this subject. Mohler v. United States, 7th Cir. 1963, 312 F.2d 228; Lugo v. United States, 9th Cir. 1965, 350 F.2d 858; Trotter v. State, 237 Ark. 820, 377 S. W.2d 14; People v. Hall, 27 Ill.2d 501, 190 N.E.2d 292; Pressley v. State, 220 Md. 558, 155 A.2d 494; Commonwealth v. Meehan, 198 Pa.Super. 558, 182 A.2d 212.
Therefore, no issue being raised as to conflict or prejudice on this appeal, we affirm the conviction, judgment, and sentence under review.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Belton v. State, 217 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1968)…THORNAL, Justice. We have for review a decision of a district court of appeal which passed upon a question certified to be of great public interest. Fla.Const. art. V, § 4, F.S.A.; Belton v. State, 211 So. 2d 238, 239 (3d Dist.Ct.App.Fla.1968). We must decide whether error occurs when a trial judge fails to appoint separate counsel for jointly tried indigent co-defendants in the absence of a demand therefor and without a showing of prejudice or conflict of…
-
State v. Youngblood, 217 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 1968)…rror problem. There, objection to joint counsel was raised at the trial and expressly saved for appellate review. Here, it was not. However, subsequent to the decision in the instant case the Court of Appeal, Third District, decided Belton v. State, 211 So. 2d 238, 239 (3d Dist.Ct.App.Fla.1968), and the Court of Appeal, First District, decided Rogers v. State, 212 So. 2d 367 (1st Dist.Ct.App. Fla.1968). In the instant case, the Fourth District decided that the alleged error was fundamental, that is that rever…
-
Dunbar v. State, 214 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)…he Third District Court of Appeal has .held that an objection or request is absolutely necessary, while the Fourth District Court has held that it is not. Compare Youngblood v. State, Fla.App.1968, 206 So. 2d 665, with Belton v. State, Fla.App.1968, 211 So. 2d 238, 239. In the recent case of Williams v. State, 214 So. 2d 29, opinion filed September 4, 1968, this court aligned itself with the Fourth District and held that “no objection is necessary in view of the fundamental right involved.” Nowhere, however,…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60 (U.S. 1942)
- Baker v. State, 202 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 1967)
- Lugo v. United States, 350 F.2d 858 (9th Cir. 1965)
- Youngblood v. State, 206 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968)
- Douglas v. State, 206 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Mohler v. United States, 312 F.2d 228 (7th Cir. 1963)