PATRICK J. O'BRIEN, 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.
Defendant's guilty plea conviction for breaking and entering with intent to commit petty larceny is affirmed on the merits, but the case is remanded for clarification of the ambiguous sentence imposed.
A defendant's waiver of counsel was voluntary, intelligent, and understanding, and the conviction is affirmed, but the case is remanded for clarification of the sentence.
[1] A defendant's waiver of counsel is valid when the colloquy demonstrates that the waiver was voluntary, intelligent, and understanding.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant was charged with breaking and entering a building with intent to commit petty larceny and pleaded guilty at arraignment.…
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 Waiver Of Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendant was charged with breaking and entering a building with intent to commit a misdemeanor, to-wit: Petty Larceny. He pleaded guilty at arraignment and the sole question presented on appeal is whether the defendant made an understanding waiver of counsel. We have examined the colloquy between the court, the prosecutor and the defendant, and from it we are able to say, without doubt on our part, that the defendant made a voluntary, intelligent and understanding waiver of counsel. Thus, no error has been made to appear in this connection and the judgment must be affirmed.
In canvassing the whole trial court procedure we notice an uncertainty or lack of clarity as concerns the sentence imposed. It arises from this exchange:
“THE COURT: It is the judgment and sentence of the Court that you be imprisoned by confinement in the Division of Corrections for a term of six months to four years.
How long have you been in jail ?
“THE DEFENDANT: Since the 11th.
“THE COURT: The 11th. That would be from six months to four years, eleven months and nineteen days.”
We feel it would be apropriate to remand this case to the trial court for clarification of sentence.
Affirmed upon the merits, and remanded for clarification of sentence.
REED, C. J., and CROSS, JJ., concur. WALDEN and
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Enos v. State, 272 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)…? The answer is “no”. Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969); Laws v. State, Fla.App.1970, 235 So. 2d 754. In the following regular appeals there is no indication that the motion to withdraw was made: O’Brien v. State, 270 So. 2d 443, Fourth District Court of Appeal, Opinion filed December 19, 1972; Carroll v. State, Fla.App.1972, 259 So. 2d 539; Kelly v. State, Fla.App.1971, 254 So. 2d 22; Anderson v. State, Fla.App. 1971, 245 So. 2d 90. There are several cases which seem to in…