JAMES D. FRIZZELL, 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.
This case addresses whether a defendant who retains private counsel can collaterally attack a conviction based on his attorney's failure to file a motion for a new trial or notice of appeal after being advised of additional fees.
No, a defendant who retains his own attorney cannot seek reversal in a collateral proceeding for something his attorney failed to do, especially when the attorney advised of additional fees for post-trial services.
“It has been held generally that where defendant retains his own attorney he cannot seek reversal in a collateral proceeding for something this attorney failed to do.”
Establishes the general rule regarding a defendant's recourse when their privately retained attorney fails to act.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant, James D. Frizzell, was represented by privately retained counsel during his trial. After conviction, he requested his attorney to file …
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 Collateral Attack cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant appeals from a final order denying appellant’s motion to vacate and set aside judgment and conviction. In the trial court, appellant was represented by his own privately retained counsel.
Appellant contends here that he requested his privately retained counsel to file *294a motion for new trial and a notice of appeal but that the attorney advised him he had only been hired for the trial and that if he wished him to handle the appeal he would have to be paid for his services.
There is nothing in appellant’s brief that points out any errors in the trial of his case.
It has been held generally that where defendant retains his own attorney he cannot seek reversal in a collateral proceeding for something this attorney failed to do. See Everett v. State, Fla.App.1964, 161 So.2d 714; Simpson v. State, Fla.App.1964, 164 So.2d 224; and Amaral v. State, Fla.App.1965, 171 So.2d 549.
Affirmed.
LILES, C. J., and ALLEN and PIERCE, TJ-, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Clement Lemmon Edwards v. State, 393 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…d 546 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Belsky v. State, 231 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970); Brown v. State, 223 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 229 So. 2d 866 (Fla.1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 969, 90 S.Ct. 1009, 25 L.Ed.2d 262 (1970); Frizzell v. State, 213 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968); Ford v. State, 210 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968); Simpson v. State, 164 So. 2d 224, 226 (Fla. 3d DCA), appeal dismissed, 169 So. 2d 383 (Fla.1964). Until overruled by the Florida Supreme Court, I am not disposed to walk away from…
-
Vagner v. Louie L. Wainwright, 398 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 1981)…2d 256 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970); Brown v. State, 223 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 229 So. 2d 866 (Fla. 1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 969, 90 S.Ct. 1009, 25 L.Ed.2d 262 (1970); Byrd v. State, 220 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969); Frizzell v. State, 213 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968); Ford v. State, 210 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968). The rule has also been applied when the issue of incompetence of retained counsel was raised on appeal of the judgment of conviction. Dickenson v. State, 261 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 3d DC…
-
Belsky v. State, 231 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)…al court took evidence on this allegation and determined that it was not true, we think it should be further pointed out that generally a defendant may not attack the competency of his privately retained counsel. See Frizzell v. State, Fla.App.1968, 213 So. 2d 293; Everett v. State, Fla.App.1964, 161 So. 2d 714. Appellant relies upon United States ex rel. Crosby v. Brierley, 404 F. 2d 790 (3rd Cir. 1968), for a contrary holding. The exception made in that case is inapplicable here, since there: (1) the trial…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Simpson v. State, 164 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Everett v. State, 161 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Amaral v. State, 171 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)