Belton v. State
| Decision Date | 04 June 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 67--961,67--961 |
| Citation | 211 So.2d 238 |
| Parties | Samuel BELTON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert L. Koeppel, Public Defender and Herbert M. Klein, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Jesse J. McCrary, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before CHARLES CARROLL, C.J., and PEARSON and BARKDULL, JJ.
The appellant, defendant in the trial court, was convicted and judgment and sentence was entered accordingly. The only point preserved for review on this appeal is alleged error in appointing the same counsel to represent the appellant and others, after an adjudication of insolvency. The appellant relied on Baker v. State, Fla.1967, 202 So.2d 563; Youngblood v. State, Fla.App.1968, 206 So.2d 665, for reversal, both of which decisions were subsequent to the appointment in the trial court and the trial of this matter.
The record fails to reveal any objection by the appellant to the joint representation by the appointed counsel or a request for independent counsel. In Baker v. State, supra, a demand or request for independent counsel was made and the Supreme Court of Florida held that this required separate counsel for indigent defendants, citing Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680, wherein one of the two defendants objected to the trial court's appointing his counsel to represent another co-defendant. In Youngblood v. State, supra, no demand or request was made but, notwithstanding this, the Fourth District Court of Appeal found it was error to appoint the same counsel to represent joint indigents.
We decline to follow Youngblood v. State, supra, and believe it is distinguishable from Baker v. State, supra; and hold that when there is a demand or request for independent counsel an indigent defendant is entitled to a reversal and a new trial if same is not accorded in the trial court. However, without a demand or request for independent counsel (and there not appearing a conflict in the positions of the several defendants or prejudice in the record) we will not find fundamental error and will not reverse, in accordance with the general authorities on this subject. Mohler v. United States, 7th Cir. 1963, 312 F.2d 228; Lugo v. United States, 9th Cir. 1965, 350 F.2d 858; Trotter v. State, 237 Ark. 820, 377 S.W.2d 14; People v. Hall, 27 Ill.2d 501, 190 N.E.2d 292; Pressley v. State, 220 Md. 558, 155 A.2d 494; ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dunbar v. State, 68--230
...while the Fourth District Court has held that it is not. Compare Youngblood v. State, Fla.App.1968, 206 So.2d 665, with Belton v. State, Fla.App.1968, 211 So.2d 238, 239. In the recent case of Williams v. State, 214 So.2d 29, opinion filed September 4, 1968, this court aligned itself with t......
-
State v. Youngblood, 37281
...it was not. However, subsequent to the decision in the instant case the Court of Appeal, Third District, decided Belton v. State, 211 So.2d 238, 239 (3d Dist.Ct.App.Fla.1968), and the Court of Appeal, First District, decided Rogers v. State, 212 So.2d 367 (1st Dist.Ct.App.Fla.1968). In the ......
-
Belton v. State, 37662
...of appeal which passed upon a question certified to be of great public interest. Fla.Const. art. V, § 4, F.S.A.; Belton v. State, 211 So.2d 238, 239 (3d Dist.Ct.App.Fla.1968). We must decide whether error occurs when a trial judge fails to appoint separate counsel for jointly tried indigent......
-
Hammer v. State, 67--877
...appointed.) We affirm the judgment as to point two upon the authority of Davis v. State, Fla.App.1968, 209 So.2d 701, and Belton v. State, Fla.App.1968, 211 So.2d 238. We also affirm the judgment as to point one. The appellants have not demonstrated error under point one. They waived any ir......