State v. Kelly
| Citation | 999 So.2d 1029 |
| Decision Date | 30 December 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. SC07-95.,SC07-95. |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Glenn KELLY, Respondent. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, FL, Celia Terenzio, Bureau Chief, Assistant Attorney General, Mitchell A. Egber, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, FL, for Petitioner.
Frank A. Maister and Garrett Elsinger, Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Respondent.
Paula S. Saunders, Assistant Public Defender, Second Judicial Circuit, Tallahassee, FL, and Michael Robert Ufferman, Tallahassee, FL, on behalf of The Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, as Amicus Curiae.
In this case, we review the decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in State v. Kelly, 946 So.2d 1152 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), in which the Fourth District certified the following question to be one of great public importance:
CAN AN UNCOUNSELED PRIOR MISDEMEANOR CONVICTION, IN WHICH THE DEFENDANT COULD HAVE BEEN INCARCERATED FOR MORE THAN SIX MONTHS, BUT WAS NOT INCARCERATED FOR ANY PERIOD, BE USED TO ENHANCE A CURRENT CHARGE FROM A MISDEMEANOR TO A FELONY?
Id. at 1154. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(4) of the Florida Constitution, and for the reasons explained below, we rephrase the certified question as follows:
WHAT IS THE SCOPE OF A CRIMINAL DEFENDANT'S RIGHT TO COUNSEL UNDER ARTICLE I, SECTION 161 OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION CONCERNING THE STATE'S USE OF PRIOR UNCOUNSELED MISDEMEANOR CONVICTIONS TO ENHANCE A LATER CHARGE FROM A MISDEMEANOR TO A FELONY?
This case results from the State's request that we recede from Hlad v. State, 585 So.2d 928 (Fla.1991), and State v. Beach, 592 So.2d 237 (Fla.1992). Hlad held that the State may not use a criminal defendant's prior uncounseled2 misdemeanor driving-under-the-influence ("DUI") convictions to increase a subsequent DUI charge from a misdemeanor to a felony, where the prior uncounseled misdemeanors led to actual imprisonment or were punishable by more than six months' imprisonment. See 585 So.2d at 928-30. Beach, in turn, clarified the elements that a defendant must assert through an affidavit to preserve an alleged instance of Hlad error. See 592 So.2d at 239.
The State premises its request entirely upon Nichols v. United States, 511 U.S. 738, 114 S.Ct. 1921, 128 L.Ed.2d 745 (1994), a United States Supreme Court decision holding that the prosecution may use an uncounseled misdemeanor conviction— which is invalid for purposes of imposing imprisonment in a direct proceeding—to impose enhanced imprisonment in a collateral proceeding. See 511 U.S. at 749, 114 S.Ct. 1921. The State correctly notes that Nichols overruled some of the federal precedent upon which this Court relied when deciding both Hlad and Beach. See Nichols, 511 U.S. at 748-49, 114 S.Ct. 1921, overruling Baldasar v. Illinois, 446 U.S. 222, 100 S.Ct. 1585, 64 L.Ed.2d 169 (1980). The instant case, as with its predecessor Hlad, involves consideration of the State's use of prior uncounseled misdemeanor DUI convictions to enhance a defendant's subsequent DUI offense from a misdemeanor to a felony.
The events leading to Glenn E. Kelly's felony DUI charge occurred on January 18, 2003, at approximately 10:45 p.m., when deputies with the Broward County Sheriff's Office arrested Mr. Kelly for his fourth DUI offense. Kelly consented to a breathalyzer test, which produced results of .092% and .090% breath-alcohol content; these results are consistent with legal intoxication in Florida. See § 316.193(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (2003). The Sheriff's Office also conducted an inventory search of Kelly's vehicle, during which deputies found an open bottle of whiskey in the vehicle's center console.
The State filed an information based on these events in Broward County Court on February 14, 2003, charging Mr. Kelly with misdemeanor DUI. The State, however, was not prepared for trial and eventually nolle prosequied the charge. The State later refiled the case on April 26, 2004, in circuit court as a felony DUI charge based on Kelly's three prior misdemeanor DUI convictions. See § 316.193(2)(b)(3), Fla. Stat. (2003) (). Two of Kelly's prior misdemeanor DUI convictions—those from March 2, 1995, and September 18, 1997, respectively—were each punishable by more than six months' imprisonment, and were the result of uncounseled no-contest pleas.3 However, Kelly did not file a motion to dismiss or a Beach affidavit until October 21, 2005, due to a substitution of counsel.
In the motion to dismiss, Kelly's counsel explained that based on Hlad and Beach, the circuit court lacked jurisdiction because there was no valid felony charge to prosecute at the circuit level. Counsel also informed the circuit court that Kelly's attached affidavit satisfied each of the four Beach elements required to preserve a Hlad objection to the State's use of prior misdemeanors as enhancers (i.e., Mr. Kelly asserted under oath that: (1) the offenses involved were punishable by more than six months' imprisonment; (2) he was indigent and, thus, entitled to court-appointed counsel; (3) counsel was not appointed; and (4) he did not validly waive his right to counsel). See Beach, 592 So.2d at 239.
In response, the State contended that the United States Supreme Court—in a decision focused on federal Sixth Amendment doctrine (i.e., Nichols) — overruled this Court's decisions in Hlad and Beach. The circuit court rejected this argument. Additionally, the circuit court, apparently sub silentio,4 rejected the State's argument that Mr. Kelly had validly waived his right to counsel when he pled no contest to his 1995 and 1997 misdemeanor DUI charges. The evidentiary-hearing transcript reveals the following relevant facts: (1) Kelly's counsel contended that the plea forms Kelly signed in 1995 and 1997 misrepresented a Florida criminal defendant's right to counsel (they stated that the defendant only had a right to court-appointed counsel if (a) he could not afford counsel, and (b) the judge was currently considering5 jail time as a punishment); (2) the records that the State produced regarding Kelly's 1995 and 1997 misdemeanor DUI pleas failed to demonstrate that the judges engaged in proper colloquies with Kelly concerning his right to counsel; (3) Kelly recalled advising the sentencing judges that he could not afford an attorney, but did not recall whether the judges asked him if he wanted an attorney appointed; (4) Kelly pled no contest because he "thought the [no contest] plea was the .... easiest financial situation for [him]"; and (5) when asked whether he understood he had a right to an attorney, Kelly responded that "[he] understood ... [he] couldn't afford an attorney."6
Following the evidentiary hearing, the circuit court entered an order dismissing the State's felony DUI information for lack of jurisdiction. The State appealed to the Fourth District Court of Appeal. In the district court, the State asserted that the circuit court had abused its discretion by following the decisions of this Court in Hlad and Beach instead of the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Nichols. In response, Mr. Kelly contended that Hlad and Beach remain controlling authority in Florida's criminal courts unless and until this Court decides to alter its precedent. The Fourth District affirmed the order of the circuit court, but certified the above-stated question as one of great public importance due to the confusion surrounding whether Hlad and Beach remain binding precedent post-Nichols.
This case presents the following issues: (1) whether Mr. Kelly carried his burden of production under Beach; and if so, (2) whether this Court will continue to follow Hlad and Beach or will, alternatively, adopt the United States Supreme Court's Nichols decision as part of Florida's right-to-counsel jurisprudence. In deciding these issues, we must first address the effect of Mr. Kelly's deficient plea forms. Next we need to clarify, under Beach, the significance of a record that is silent as to whether the defendant's prior convictions were supported by proper plea colloquies. We also consider any differences or distinguishing factors between Florida's misdemeanor right-to-counsel standard and that presented as the federal standard. Finally, we must analyze whether Nichols should be positioned as persuasive precedent and as a guidepost when interpreting article I, section 16 of the Florida Constitution. We conclude that we should reaffirm a modified version of our Hlad/Beach framework, which is explicitly premised upon independent state-law grounds.
Mr. Kelly contends that his 1995 and 1997 plea forms did not accurately reflect a criminal defendant's right to counsel in Florida. We agree with this assessment as applied to the facts of this case. The versions of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.111(b)(1) that applied to each of Kelly's no-contest pleas are identical. In relevant part, these provisions indicate that Florida is a "prospective imprisonment" jurisdiction that provides indigent criminal defendants a right to counsel in all criminal prosecutions "punishable by imprisonment," except in misdemeanor or ordinance-violation cases where the trial judge affirmatively certifies in writing—before trial—that the defendant will not face a term of imprisonment for the charged offense. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.111(b)(1) (1992). In other words, in Florida, indigent defendants have a right to counsel in all criminal prosecutions punishable by imprisonment—even misdemeanor prosecutions—unless the trial judge "opts out" by providing the defendant a written, pretrial certification that the defendant will not be imprisoned for the charged offense. See id.; ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hurst v. State
... ... State v. Kelly, 999 So.2d 1029, 1042 (Fla.2008). Put simply, the United States Constitution generally sets the floornot the ceilingof personal rights and freedoms that must be afforded to a defendant by Florida law. Id. As we explained in Kelly, we have the duty to independently examine and determine ... ...
-
E.A.R. v. State
... ... As we have previously observed, "[q]uotations from cases, shorn of their factual context, are not much help in making a decision." State v. Kelly, 999 So.2d 1029, ___ (Fla. 2008) (quoting United States v. Galindo-Gallegos, 244 F.3d 728, 730 (9th Cir.2001)) ... 3. We cannot agree with our esteemed dissenting colleagues that this case merely addresses "what standard of review should [apply]" under these circumstances. Dissenting op. at ... ...
-
Estate of McCall v. U.S.
... ... She graduated from high school with honors and had attended one term of college at the University of Florida and a partial term at Florida State University before returning home to Ft. Walton Beach, Florida, in 2005 for medical treatment unrelated to this case. She subsequently returned to ... Kelly, 999 So.2d 1029, 1042 (Fla.2008); see also Gore, 517 U.S. at 577, 116 S.Ct. 1589 (recognizing "only state courts may authoritatively construe ... ...
-
State v. Young
... ... to be heard in person, by counsel or both. Fla. Const. art. I, 16 (a). The Florida trail begins with Hlad, 585 So.2d at 930 and State v. Beach, 592 So.2d 237, 238 (Fla.1992). After the Supreme Court decided Nichols, in State v. Kelly, 999 So.2d 1029, 103233 (Fla.2008), the State of Florida urged the Florida Supreme Court to abandon Hlad and Beach and adopt the Nichols approach. The Florida Supreme Court declined to do so. Id. at 1039. The court, like many of the other state supreme courts rejecting the Nichols ... ...
-
Preliminary proceedings (bail and bond; attorney for defendant)
...to counsel. (See this case for extensive discussion of the use of prior misdemeanor DUI to enhance a DUI to a felony.) State v. Kelly, 999 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 2008) Defendant was arrested on unrelated crimes, and he was placed into a live lineup for identification by witnesses relating to a m......
-
Dui defense
...of felony DUI where the defendant had a right to counsel on the earlier charge but was unrepresented by counsel. [ State v. Kelly , 999 So. 2d 1029, 1053 (Fla. 2008).] This is because the conviction without the representation of counsel lacks the sufficient reliability that is necessary to ......
-
Crimes
...to counsel. (See this case for extensive discussion of the use of prior misdemeanor DUI to enhance a DUI to a felony.) State v. Kelly, 999 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 2008) When defendant is charged with felony DUI, he is entitled to a bifurcated jury trial on the issues (1) whether he committed DUI,......
-
Chapter 6 Counsel for the Defense
...misdemeanor to a felony, unless the defendant waived his or her right to counsel with regard to those prior convictions." State v. Kelly, 999 So.2d 1029, 1053 (Fla. 2008). 10. The Supreme Court has ruled that indigent criminal defendants have a constitutional right to court-appointed counse......