ROBERT HAROLD GRANTHAM, PETITIONER,
v.
LOUIE L. WAINWRIGHT, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS, RESPONDENT

Fla. 2d DCA | 1972-05-03
No. 72-63
HOBSON, A’. C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur.
261 So. 2d 508 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (1972) Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 cases
Topics
Delayed Appellate Review Right To Appointed Counsel Indigency Habeas Corpus

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Delayed Appellate Review cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
MANN, Judge.

MANN, Judge.

Grantham’s application for delayed 'appellate review by habeas corpus pursuant to Baggett v. Wainwright, Fla.1969, 229 So.2d 239, states that the trial judge did not advise him of his right to appointed counsel for appeal if he were indigent. He states that his court-appointed counsel informed him that he would prosecute an appeal if Grantham could raise the funds, but that he could not and was deprived of his right to appeal.

The state contends that Nichols v. Wainwright, Fla.App.2d 1971, 243 So.2d 430, requires denial of the petition for failure of the petitioner to take any affirmative action toward an appeal. While it is artlessly pleaded, as we might expect, the import of Grantham’s charge is that he wanted to appeal, couldn’t afford to pay a lawyer and was misinformed that his right to appeal depended on his having funds. The court reporter having certified that there is not available a transcript of the sentencing, we accordingly appoint the Honorable Neil C. McMullen, Chief Judge of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, as Commissioner for the taking of testimony relative to the merits of Grantham’s petition.

HOBSON, A’. C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Dougherty v. State, 149 So. 3d 672 (Fla. 2014)
    …sist the Court, so as to enable the Court wisely to determine whether ... proceedings ... must be ... stayed during a period of necessary treatment.”))); see also Alexander v. State, 380 So. 2d 1188, 1190 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) (citing Butler v. State, 261 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972) (noting that competence to stand trial is a legal question and not a medical question)). Accepting a stipulation improperly absolves the trial court from making an independent determination regarding a defendant’s competency to s…
  • Alexander v. State, 380 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
    …t be adjudicated from incompetent to competent without a hearing. The question of a defendant’s sanity is a legal question and not a medical question, although based upon medical and other evidence, and it must be “legally” decided. Butler v. State, 261 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972.) One further point warrants discussion. Appellant contends that in any event, there was no legal or judicial decision made as to his competency because the Court never entered a written order. Appellant relies on Emerson v. Stat…
  • Parks v. State, 290 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)
    …language of the rule [*564] above stated corroborates this. Forasmuch as we know, short of a proper judicial inquiry in the form of a hearing, the appellant was incompetent to stand trial at the time he was tried. See Butler v. State, Fla.App.1972, 261 So. 2d 508. And so what shall we do? We do temporarily remand the cause to the Circuit Court of Orange County with respectful directions that the competency of the appellant at the time of his trial be determined in a full hearing as required by Rule 3.210(a)…

Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw