JIMMY MILTON SMITH, 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.
Smith appealed his conviction on two counts, and the trial court initially denied his request for a free trial transcript. The appellate court reversed, holding that an indigent defendant raising issues requiring review of trial testimony is entitled to a free transcript under Moore v. State.
An indigent defendant is entitled to a free transcript of trial testimony when his assignments of error raise matters that require review of the testimony, regardless of philosophical or constitutional arguments made in the motion requesting the transcript.
[1] An indigent defendant is entitled to a free transcript of testimony for use in an appeal when the assignments of error raise matters that inhere in the transcript of test…
[2] A trial court errs in denying a motion for a free transcript of trial proceedings when the defendant's assignments of error necessitate review of the trial testimony.
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“We wish to emphasize that where an assignment of error raises matters which inhere in the transcript of testimony, an indigent defendant is entitled to a free transcript of the testimony for use in his appeal.”
Establishes the core principle from Moore v. State that an indigent appellant is entitled to a free transcript when appellate issues require review of trial testimony.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSmith was represented at trial by an assistant public defender and was found guilty on two counts. He timely moved for a new trial arguing the verdict…
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 Right To Transcript For Indigent Defendants cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was represented at trial by an assistant public defender, He was found guilty of the two counts charging crimes in the amended information. The trial attorney timely moved for a new trial alleging, inter alia: “That the verdict of the jury was contrary to the weight of the evidence.” Upon petition filed by appellant, the trial court entered an order of insolvency directing Bay County to bear any costs necessary and incident to the prosecution of appellant’s appeal. On March 26, 1975, the public defender appointed to represent appellant in prosecuting the instant appeal filed the following assignments of error:
“1. The Court erred in denying the Defendant’s Motion for Judgment of Acquittal at the close of the State’s case.
“2. The Court erred in denying the Defendant’s Motion for Judgment of Acquittal at the close of the Defendant’s case and the entire trial.
“3. The Court erred in denying the Defendant’s Motion for New Trial.”
On the same date, the public defender filed a “Motion for Order Directing Court Reporter to Transcribe Notes of the Entire Proceedings”, which motion the trial court denied citing that court’s Administrative Order 74-04 and the opinion of this court in Moore v. State, 298 So. 2d 561 (Fla.App. 1st, 1974).
The trial court erred in its interpretation of Moore v. State wherein we clearly stated:
“We wish to emphasize that where an assignment of error raises matters which inhere in the transcript of testimony, an indigent defendant is entitled to a free transcript of the testimony for use in his appeal.”
The above recited assignments of error, coupled with trial and post trial motions, entitles this appellant to a transcript of the trial proceedings.
The subject motion contains extensive philosophical statements seeking to attack the constitutionality of “Administrative Order No. 74-04, and, apparently, the trial judge denied the motion upon its contents. Were we confronted solely with the contents of the motion, we would agree. However, we must presume that the public defender fulfilled his obligation as an officer of this court in filing the assignments of error related above. We will not presume that trial and post trial motions were filed as a subterfuge to obviate the impact of Moore.1
The order of the trial court denying appellant’s motion for a transcript is reversed. Jurisdiction of this cause is relinquished to the trial court with directions that it direct the court reporter to forthwith transcribe the proceedings. Further appellate proceedings shall then be had in accordance with the Florida Appellate Rules.
RAWLS, Acting C. J., and MILLS and SMITH, JJ„ concur. . If such tactics are utilized by trial attorneys, they are subject to disciplinary action by the trial court and this court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. State, 335 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)…ounsel’s assignments of error set out in our prior opinion, the judgment of conviction is reversed with directions that a new trial be granted. REVERSED. RAWLS, Acting C. J., and MILLS, J., concur. SMITH, J., specially concurs. . Smith v. State, 325 So. 2d 426 (1 Fla.App. 1976).…
-
Maine v. State, 899 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…ute for the right to full appellate review”); Daniels v. State, 441 So. 2d 186, 187 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983) (“[T]he trial court [cannot] refuse to authorize the preparation of the record because of a belief that the appeal lacks merit”); Smith v. State, 325 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). An indigent criminal defendant has the right to have an attorney evaluate the case and attempt to discern nonfrivolous arguments. See Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259, 278 n. 10, 120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756 (2000). In State v.…
Authorities Cited
- Moore v. State, 298 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)