Douglas v. State
| Decision Date | 26 November 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 68--87,68--87 |
| Parties | Taft DOUGLAS, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert L. Koeppel, Public Defender, and Jack L. Herkowitz, Special Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen. and Melvin Grossman, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before PEARSON, HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.
This is an appeal by defendant, Taft Douglas, Jr., from a conviction of breaking and entering a dwelling with intent to commit a felony, to-wit: Grand Larceny and Petit Larceny.
The first point raised on appeal is: 'Whether the trial court deprived the defendant of his right to counsel by denying defendant's request that the trial be continued?'
The record reveals that the defendant was arrested and charged on October 15, 1966, for the above-mentioned crime. On November 17, 1966, while represented by a private attorney, defendant was arraigned, entered a plea of not guilty and waived jury trial. Bond was set and defendant was later released from jail. On June 26, 1967, defendant's private attorney was granted leave to withdraw. On the same day bond was revoked and the defendant was ordered back to jail. About one month after defendant's private attorney was allowed to withdraw, he again appeared on behalf of defendant and made a motion to reinstate defendant's bond. On January 8, 1968, defendant appeared in court for trial without an attorney.
At that time, the trial judge immediately appointed an assistant public defender to represent the defendant. A short while thereafter, the assistant public defender related to the court that the defendant desired a continuance in order to obtain certain papers and information from his former attorney. This request for a continuance was denied, and the court gave as its reason the following:
(1) that the two key witnesses for the State had been called to court eight times in the past, never having yet testified;
(2) that those witnesses '* * * would find it extremely difficult, if not impossible * * *' to return. Thereupon, the court announced its intention to hear only the testimony of the two witnesses, with the remainder of the trial to be continued until January 18. At this point, the record on appeal shows no objection on behalf of the defendant, and the trial commenced. After direct, cross, redirect, and recross examination of the two witnesses, the trial was recessed and did not resume until ten days later.
It is appell...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. State, 60546
...of the trial court. Durcan v. State, 350 So.2d 525 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Mills v. State, 280 So.2d 35 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Douglas v. State, 216 So.2d 82 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968). This principle remains intact even in situations where the death penalty is of issue. See Cooper v. State, 336 So.2d 113......
-
MLE v. State, 3D99-2003.
...3d DCA 1997); Mills v. State, 280 So.2d 35 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Harrelson v. State, 259 So.2d 526 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972); Douglas v. State, 216 So.2d 82 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968). ...
-
Cheatham v. State, 76-713
...and the court's action with respect thereto will be reversed only upon a showing of a palpable abuse of discretion. See Douglas v. State, 216 So.2d 82 (Fla.3d DCA 1968); Mills v. State, 280 So.2d 35 (Fla.3d DCA 1973). A review of the record reflects no such abuse of discretion. Defendant wa......
-
Durcan v. State, 76-1144
...of the accused, or whereby his rights may have been jeopardized. Mills v. State, 280 So.2d 35 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Douglas v. State, 216 So.2d 82 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968) and cases cited therein. We conclude defendant has failed to show an abuse of discretion or that any of his rights were First, ......