JAMES DANIEL, PETITIONER,
v.
LOUIE L. WAINWRIGHT, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ADULT CORRECTIONS, STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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 petitioner is entitled to full appellate review of his conviction via habeas corpus due to procedural entanglements that deprived him of his direct appeal rights.
[1] A court may consolidate prior appeals with a subsequent habeas corpus proceeding to ensure orderly review.
[2] A petitioner who has been deprived of the right of direct appeal due to procedural entanglements is entitled to appellate review through a writ of habeas corpus.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioner was convicted of rape and sentenced to 25 years. His direct appeal was dismissed due to a series of procedural missteps and entanglements, …
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 Florida Rules Of Appellate Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
On May 5, 1970, petitioner James Daniel, in proper person, filed in this Court his petition for writ of habeas corpus. He claims he should be either discharged from custody or else be accorded the equivalent of a full appeal from his conviction. We issued the writ on May 6, 1970, directing the respondent custodian Wainwright to show cause why the petition should not be granted. Respondent has now filed his return to the writ, and the matter is now before us for further proceedings.
The proceedings in this Court establish the following record facts in chronological sequence:
—On August 2, 1966, Daniel was indicted by the Citrus County grand jury for the offense of rape;
—On April 26, 1967, he was tried and found guilty by a jury, with recommendation for mercy;
—On May 2, 1967, Daniel (apparently in his own proper person) filed his notice of appeal from his said "Conviction for Rape”;
—On June 1, 1967, the trial Court entered order appointing Robert E. Pierce to represent Daniel on appeal;
*833—On July 6, 1967, Daniel was adjudged guilty and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 25 years;
—On July 14, 1967, “amended order” was filed appointing Richard H. Langley to represent Daniel on the appeal;
—On September 13, 1967, motion for new trial was filed by Daniel;
—On December 12, 1967, Daniel, through his Court appointed attorney Langley, filed his notice of appeal “from his conviction of the crime of Rape and the Order of the Court denying his motion for a new trial”;
—On December 20, 1967, the trial Court denied the motion for new trial;
—On March 1, 1968, motion was filed in this Court by the Attorney General to dismiss “the appeal”;
—On March 18, 1968, this Court granted said motion and dismissed the appeal “commenced by Notice of Appeal filed . . ; on May 2, 1967”;
—On May 5, 1970, Daniel filed in this Court his petition for writ of habeas corpus;
—On May 6, 1970, this Court issued rule to respondent Wainwright to show cause why the petition should not be granted;
—On May 26, 1970, respondent filed his return to the rule.
In one or two minor particulars the foregoing delineated proceedings have been derived from a certified “Transcript of Record” filed in this Court in the former aborted “appeal” in this case, numbered as Case No. 67-201, but only as they may have been so referred to in the petition for writ and/or the return thereto. And in order that subsequent proceedings in the instant habeas corpus matter, which is Case No. 70-364, may be more orderly (or at least less disorderly), Case No. 67-201 will be consolidated with the instant case, and it is so ordered.
From a consideration of the prior proceedings in the lower Court, as before depicted, it is obvious that the case degenerated into a maze of procedural entanglements, out of which it became virtually impossible for petitioner Daniel to have the validity of his conviction reviewed by direct appeal. It would serve no good purpose at this time to attempt to assess the responsibility for such situation. We will not do so. Suffice to say that not all the fault was petitioner’s, but at the same time he has been deprived of his right of appeal from his conviction, when he was obviously trying to secure such direct review.
A careful study of the record facts as shown here to exist convinces us that petitioner should have the benefit of the rationale of Baggett v. Wainwright, Fla. 1969, 229 So.2d 239. From a reading of that case it is apparent that the acts of a Public Defender in representing an indigent defendant, either of omission or commission, constitute “state action”. And inasmuch as the essential facts which persuade us to accord Daniel such right of review are matters of record and therefore not controverted, there is no necessity to appoint a commissioner to take any testimony or have a hearing as to the entitlement of Daniel to such review.
Accordingly, we do herewith order that the petitioner James Daniel be afforded the opportunity in this habeas corpus proceeding of full appellate review by this Court of the judgment and sentence entered on July 6, 1967, by the Circuit Court in and for Citrus County, Florida, wherein he was adjudged guilty of the offense of rape and sentenced to 25 years in the State Prison.
In the interest of orderly procedure and for the sole purpose of accomplishing the foregoing objective, the petitioner is hereby granted leave to file directions to the Clerk, assignments of error, briefs, and transcript of record, in accordance with the provisions.of PART VI of the Florida Appellate Rules, 32 F.S.A., all computa*834tions of time thereunder to commence from the date of this order.
It is further ordered that the “Transcript of Record” heretofore filed in this Court in Case No. 67-201 be returned to the Clerk of the Court below, to be utilized in preparation of the certified transcript of record that may be hereafter filed in the instant case.
It is further ordered that the Circuit Judge shall immediately appoint counsel to represent petitioner in the further proceedings in this case pursuant to this opinion and order.
LILES, Acting C. J., and PIERCE and McNULTY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Meyer v. State, 415 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)…2d DCA 1964), complying with State ex rel. Ervin v. Smith, 160 So. 2d 518 (Fla.1964). .The District Courts of Appeal have routinely granted such habeas corpus relief where the facts readily show entitlement thereto. See, e.g., Daniel v. Wainwright, 237 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970); State exrel Arnold v. State, 233 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970). Other cases have recognized the right, although denying the petition for relief based on the particular facts of the case. See, e.g., Johnson v. State, 390 So. 2d 12…
-
Evans v. Louie L. Wainwright, 252 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)…judge dated May 20, 1970.” and that because he was so deprived of counsel at the time of his sentence he “was deprived of his right of appeal and is entitled to relief under the doctrine of this Court in the case of Daniel v. Wainwright, [Fla.App.] 237 So. 2d 832”. Evans’ assertion as to deprivation of counsel was erroneous because the premise upon which such conclusion was based was false. Evans was in fact represented by his trial counsel, Mr. Grant, at the time of his sentencing and the record affirmativ…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Baggett v. Louie L. Wainwright, 229 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 1969)