DENNIS ROBINSON, PETITIONER,
v.
LOUIE L. WAINWRIGHT, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS, STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, 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 Florida Supreme Court granted petitioner Dennis Robinson's habeas corpus petition challenging his conviction after the trial court failed to inform him of his right to appeal. The Court transferred the case to the Second District Court of Appeal to determine whether this failure entitled Robinson to delayed appellate review under the precedent of Baggett v. Wainwright.
The trial court had a duty under Criminal Rule 1.670 to advise Robinson of his right to appeal. Under the facts presented, Robinson made out a prima facie case for relief entitling him to delayed appellate review, though the Court did not definitively resolve whether this derives from an absolute right to advice or requires a showing of lack of knowledge of appellate processes.
[1] A trial court has a duty to advise a defendant of their right to appeal a judgment and sentence.
[2] A defendant may be entitled to delayed appellate review if they were not informed of their right to appeal.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Clearly, petitioner is correct in his assertion that a judge has a duty in Florida to advise a defendant of his right to appeal a judgment and sentence. This duty is set out explicitly in Criminal Rule 1.670.”
Establishes the court's recognition that Florida law explicitly requires trial courts to inform defendants of appellate rights.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRobinson was convicted and sentenced but was not informed by the trial court of his right to appeal the judgment and sentence. He was also not advised…
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 Delayed Appellate Review cases and more on FLexlaw
On February 5, 1971, petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus in this Court alleging, among other things, that his right of direct appeal had been thwarted by state action, ánd seeking, under Baggett v. Wainwright, 229 So.2d 239 (Fla. 1969), delayed appellate review.
Specifically, petitioner alleged, “that he was not advised by the Court of his right to appeal the judgment and sentence, and further alleges that it’s a judge’s duty to inform defendant.” Petitioner further alleged that he was not advised of his right to appeal the denials of his two Criminal Rule 1.8S0, 33 F.S.A. petitions, but stated with regard to the second denial, entered some six months after entry of judgment and sentence, “However, by this time, Petitioner, after reading in the Prison Law Library was aware that this was one of his-rights (to appeal a denial).” The infer*868ence is that petitioner did not discover the existence of this state’s appellate machinery until well beyond the time permitted for direct appeal.
In the State’s return, wherein this matter was touched upon only by way of a general denial, the transcript of the proceedings revealed without contradiction that at no time was petitioner informed by the trial court that he had a right to appeal the judgment and sentence entered against him.
Clearly, petitioner is correct in his assertion that a judge has a duty in Florida to advise a defendant of his right to appeal a judgment and sentence. This duty is set out explicitly in Criminal Rule 1.670. However, it is unnecessary at this juncture to determine whether this duty gives rise to an absolute right to such advice [as Baker v. State, 224 So.2d 331 (Fla.App. 1st 1969) implies] or whether lack of knowledge of our appellate processes must be shown to entitle a defendant to relief [as the Second District Court held in Nichols v. Wainwright, 243 So.2d 430 (Fla.App. 2nd 1971)]. Under the facts before us, it would appear that petitioner has made out a prima facie case for relief under either theory.
Therefore, in accord with the policy we announced in Baggett v. Wainwright, supra, we hereby transfer this cause to the Second District Court of Appeal to permit it to make inquiry into these matters and grant such relief as it may deem appropriate, including the appointment of a commissioner to make further findings of fact.
It is so ordered.
ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Coyle v. City OF Fort Lauderdale, 785 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…ubts about how diligent he was in seeking an appeal should be resolved in his favor as a matter of law. When viewed in that light, he has established a prima facie case for a belated appeal under rule 9.141 (c)(4)(A)(ii). See Robinson v. Wainwright, 245 So. 2d 867 (Fla.1971). The issue is whether the evidence as resolved in favor of the City establishes as a matter of law that petitioner’s request for a belated appeal is not too stale. The final judgment on his conviction was entered December 31, 1996; thus…1 / 2
-
Kelly v. State, 959 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…lects that the trial court itself failed to discharge its duty under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.670 to advise Kelly concerning those rights. The trial court’s failure to do so entitles Kelly to a belated appeal. See Robinson v. Wainwright, 245 So. 2d 867 (Fla.1971); Fleming v. State, 895 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). Accordingly, the petition seeking a belated appeal of the judgment and sentence rendered on or about June 2, 2005, in Alachua County Circuit Court case number 01-2004-CF-5032-A, is…
-
Coyle v. Walker, 767 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…iction, argued that the trial court did not advise him of his right to appeal. We grant the petition in part, and remand the case to the circuit court appellate division. See Fla.R.App.P. 9.140(j)(3); Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.670; Robinson v. Wainwright, 245 So. 2d 867 (Fla.1971); see also Patterson v. State, 736 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Upon remand the circuit court shall appoint a commissioner to make findings of fact in connection with the “reasonable diligence” component of rule 9.140(j)(3). Thereafter…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Baggett v. Louie L. Wainwright, 229 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 1969)
- Robinson v. Robinson, 224 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Nichols v. Louie L. Wainwright, 243 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)