MELVIN EDWARD CHAMBERS, 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.
The court held that summary denial of a motion for ineffective assistance of counsel without a hearing was error when the record did not conclusively show the attorney was prepared.
Appellant was charged with felonies and appeared for trial without counsel after his private attorneys withdrew. The public defender was appointed the…
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 Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a summary denial, without a hearing, of appellant’s motion filed pursuant to Rule 3.850, R.Cr.P., in which he claims ineffective assistance of counsel.
The principal grounds relied upon the motion are that on May 20, 1974 appellant, charged with four felonies in a four-count information, appeared without counsel for trial thereon. Appellant had previously been represented by two different private attorneys each of whom had extracted a fee and then filed withdrawals. On that day, upon a showing of indigency, the public defender was appointed and immediately announced he was ready for trial. Trial indeed commenced the following day, May 21, 1974, resulting in appellant’s conviction.
Clearly, of course, there may well be facts and circumstances which would support the conclusion that the public defender was in fact prepared for trial, as he said, and that his representation was at least reasonably effective;1 but the record does not, as required by the rule, “conclusively show” that this was so and the fact that the public defender’s participation was only for a period of twenty four hours before trial tends to negate it. Under these circumstances we think it was error summarily to deny the motion herein without a hearing.
In view whereof the order appealed from should be, and it is hereby, reversed and the cause is remanded for a hearing on the issue of whether appellant was denied his right to reasonably effective counsel.
McNULTY, C. J., and HOBSON and BOARDMAN, JJ., concur. . It now seems clear that the “farce and mockery” standard in these cases has been abandoned, at least as to court-appointed counsel. It is sufficient for post conviction relief that an aggrieved defendant show only that court appointed counsel was not reasonably effective. Herring v. Estelle, 5th Cir. 1974, 491 F. 2d 125.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gunn v. State, 378 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)…on appeal . . . ” Denial of effective assistance of counsel at trial or plea is an issue appropriate for collateral relief. Payne v. State, 362 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Robinson v. State, 352 So. 2d 936 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Chambers v. State, 337 So. 2d 845 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); Hill v. State, 297 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); Lay v. State, 224 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). This cause, therefore, is remanded to the trial court under a temporary relinquishment of jurisdiction, for forty-five days, with…
-
Grier v. State, 424 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)…the alleged burglaries and, therefore, competent counsel was required at the hearing. In a motion for post-conviction relief, an aggrieved defendant need only show that the court-appointed counsel was not “reasonably effective.” Chambers v. State, 337 So. 2d 845 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). The record in the instant case does not conclusively show that appellant received reasonably effective counsel. The fact that de [*994] fense counsel participated in the case for less than twenty-four hours tends to negate the re…
Authorities Cited
- Herring v. Estelle, 491 F.2d 125 (5th Cir. 1974)