Donald v. State
| Decision Date | 01 May 1963 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 3563,s. 3563 |
| Citation | 154 So.2d 357 |
| Parties | Edward Reid DONALD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. to 3567. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Edward Reid Donald, in pro. per.
Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, Robert R. Crittenden, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.
Edward Reid Donald, appellant, has filed with this court an instrument which he styled, 'Motion for Writ of Mandamus,' requesting that 'the court appoint an attorney to assist him in perfecting his appeal', setting out that he is an indigent, and invoking 'the true spirit of the 6th and 14th Amendments.' He is now serving sentences in the the Florida State Prison entered in the Circuit Court for Pinellas County for commission of felonies, in two cases for uttering a forged check, in two others for forgery, and in one for the crime of escape. Upon application of appellant, the five cases were consolidated for purposes of the record on appeal and the briefs.
Appellant's request before this court constitutes a petition for the furnishing of legal assistance on the appeals. The record clearly reveals that the sentencing judge did, in fact, enter an order declaring appellant to be insolvent.
Of decisive import here is the March 18, 1963, case of Douglas v. People of the State of California, 372 U.S. 353, 83 S.Ct. 814, wherein the United States Supreme Court addressed itself solely to the question of whether or not an indigent shall be denied the assistance of counsel on appeal. In that case, two petitioners-defendants had been jointly tried in a California court on an information charging them with 13 felonies. A single public defender was appointed to represent them, and motions for appointment of separate counsel and continuance, made both at the commencement of the trial and subsequently, were denied. Petitioners dismissed the defender, claiming he was unprepared. Upon conviction by a jury of all 13 felonies, with consequent prison sentences, both defendants appealed as of right to the California District Court of Appeal, with the result that their convictions were affirmed. The California Supreme Court, without hearing, denied their petition for further discretionary review. The Supreme Court of the United States later granted their petition for writ of certiorari, from which emanated the decision we are now discussing.
The preliminary observation was made by the Supreme Court that, by the record, the petitioners had requested and were denied the assistance of counsel on appeal, even though it plainly appeared they were indigents. It was indicated that, in denying the requests, the California District Court of Appeal had set out that it had "gone through' the record and had come to the conclusion that 'no good whatever could be served by appointment of counsel." The California court, in this conclusion, was acting under a state rule of criminal procedure authorizing appellate courts of California, upon request of an indigent for counsel, to make "an independent investigation of the record and determine whether it would be of advantage to the defendant or helpful to the appellate court to have counsel appointed." If, after such investigation, in the appellate court's opinion it would be helpful to the defendant or the court, the court should appoint counsel and should deny it only if, in its judgment, such appointment would be of no value to either the defendant or the court.
The court pointed out that it was dealing only with a first appeal from a criminal conviction, granted as a matter of right to rich and poor...
To continue reading
Request your trial