HOWARD VIRGIL LEE DOUGLAS, 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.
The court held that a criminal defendant does not have the right to have specific attorneys of his own choice appointed to represent him.
After being arrested and declared insolvent, the defendant requested the appointment of two specific attorneys. This motion was denied, and the defend…
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 Indigent Defense cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendant-appellant appeals from the denial of post-conviction relief sought by way of a petition under CrPR 1.850, 33 F. S.A.
Shortly after defendant was arrested for forging an endorsement, he was declared insolvent and given the assistance of the Public Defender. Defendant thereafter filed a “Motion for Reappointment of Counsel, giving no reason for the request, but demanding the right to have two specifically named attorneys appointed to represent him. The motion was denied, and defendant, assisted by the Public Defender, entered a plea of guilty to the charge of forgery. After being adjudicated guilty and sentenced, defendant moved pursuant to CrPR 1.850 for post-cónviction relief. The motion was denied and this appeal followed.
The sole issue to be resolved is whether 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 MANN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hammond v. State, 264 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)…defendant knew certain pertinent facts regarding 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…
-
State v. Brown, 257 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…le this might be a good ground for denying its admission into evidence at the time it is offered [Deeb v. State, 131 Fla. 362, 179 So. 894; North v. State, Fla.1966, 65 So. 2d 77; Watson v. State, Fla.1966, 190 So. 2d 161; Wincor v. State, Fla.App., 212 So. 2d 42; Stunson v. State, Fla.App.1969, 228 So. 2d 294], it is not a ground for suppressing the evidence which was legally seized. The inquiry on a motion to suppress is different than the inquiry at the time of trial as to the admissibility of the evidenc…
-
Barnes v. State, 360 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See: North v. State, 65 So. 2d 77 (Fla.1952); Crum v. State, 172 So. 2d 24 (Fla.3d DCA 1965); Wincor v. State, 212 So. 2d 42 (Fla.3d DCA 1968); Pearsall v. State, 215 So. 2d 58 (Fla.1st DCA 1968); Yost v. State, 243 So. 2d 469 (Fla.3d DCA 1971); Ashley v. State, 265 So. 2d 685 (Fla.1972); Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.390(d); Fla.Std.Jury Instr. (Crim.) 2.16.…
Authorities Cited
- Wilder v. State, 156 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963)
- Donald v. State, 166 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Fischer v. Jefferson Ins. Co., 166 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Ira A. Hotchkiss and Mona Hess v. Sec. Bank, 172 So. 2d 876 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Brooks v. State, 172 So. 2d 876 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965)
- Diehl v. State, 200 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)