Gideon v. Wainwright, 31116
| Decision Date | 15 May 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 31116,31116 |
| Citation | 153 So.2d 299 |
| Parties | Clarence Earl GIDEON, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Clarence Earl Gideon, in pro. per.
Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and Bruce Jacob, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Following our denial of petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus this cause was considered by the Supreme Court of the United States on a writ of certiorari. Our judgment was reversed and the cause was remanded for further action not inconsistent with the opinion of the United States Court.
The matter now recurs for consideration pursuant to the mandate of the Supreme Court of the United States.
By his post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus, Gideon alleged that at his trial on a felony information he was insolvent and requested the assistance of counsel. His request was denied. His petition failed to allege that he was unable to defend himself adequately because of a lack of intelligence of ability or because of any complications arising out of the charge and a lack of familiarity with minimal essentials of criminal procedure. In the absence of these allegations we originally denied the writ on the authority of Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455, 62 S.Ct. 1252, 86 L.Ed. 1595. As noted by the United States Court in its opinion in the instant case, there is a marked factual similarity between this case and Betts. In view of the Betts precedent which we have followed since its announcement in 1941, we felt obligated to follow its pronouncements in this instance. In consequence of this view, we initially concluded that the petition was fatally insufficient to motivate the issuance of a post-conviction writ. Johnson v. Mayo, 158 Fla. 264, 28 So.2d 585, cert. den. 329 U.S. 804, 67 S.Ct. 492, 91 L.Ed. 687.
By its instant opinion the Supreme Court of the United States has expressly receded from the long-established rule announced in Betts v. Brady, supra. We are now confronted with the responsibility of taking note of the belatedly recognized federal organic right to counsel authoritatively announced by the United States Supreme Court in its Gideon opinion.
In order to meet this judicial responsibility we have promptly undertaken to establish appropriate procedures that will accord to prisoners an effective forum in which they may expeditiously obtain a hearing and any relief to which they might be entitled. We have taken judicial cognizance of the large number of felons incarcerated in the state prison who potentially have claims to relief because of absence of counsel at the time of their trial and conviction. The task of reviewing these claims, if and when asserted, appeared to be of such magnitude that it was essential to establish an effective procedural remedy that would distribute the judicial responsibility, while simultaneously according to the prisoner an expeditious and complete opportunity to obtain relief. Roy v. Wainwright, Fla., 151 So.2d 825.
In meeting the full measure of our responsibility we turned to federal criminal procedures for a precedent. It appeared to us that the most effective procedural remedy that could be provided under the circumstances would be to adopt as a criminal procedure rule the express language of 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which had been enacted by the Congress in 1948, and has since been employed in the federal system in many cases. Under our constitutional rule-making power, Article V, Section 3, Florida Constitution, F.S.A., we promulgated, on April 1, 1963, Criminal Procedure Rule #1, 31 F.S.A. Except to the extent necessary to adapt the language of the statute to the Florida courts, the rule which we have promulgated is identical with the federal statute. Roy v. Wainwright, supra.
Under the rule which we have announced, post-conviction relief can be obtained where there is a claimed denial of some fundamental or organic right in the course of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Woodard v. State
...court intervenes as in coram nobis. See the opinions of Mr. Justice Thornal in Roy v. Wainwright, Fla., 151 So.2d 825, Gideon v. Wainwright, Fla., 153 So.2d 299, and State v. Weeks, Fla., 166 So.2d Here the opinion of the court below has not led up to a judgment denying Woodard's petition o......
-
United States v. LaVallee
...reconsideration in light of Gideon. The Florida supreme court is apparently uniformly applying Gideon retroactively. See Gideon v. Wainwright, Fla., 153 So.2d 299 (on 7 In Otten v. Warden, Baltimore City Jail, D.C.Md., 216 F.Supp. 289, the question of Gideon's retroactivity was listed as an......
-
State v. Kelly
...v. Culver, 120 So.2d 590, 594 (Fla.1960) (following Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 53 S.Ct. 55, 77 L.Ed. 158 (1932)); Gideon v. Wainwright, 153 So.2d 299, 300 (Fla.1963) (following Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963), on remand); Rollins v. State, 299 So.......
-
Rita v. State
...3.850 motion. This rule was formerly Criminal Rule 1 and has the same scope as the common law writ of habeas corpus. Gideon v. Wainwright, 153 So.2d 299, 300 (Fla.1963). The meaning of "custody" as used in rule 3.850 is the same as that applied to determine the right or standing of a person......
-
Walking out on the check: how Missouri abandoned its public defenders and left the poor to foot the bill.
...152 U. PA. L. Rev. 1361, 1391 (2004). (62.) Gideon, 372 U.S. at 337. (63.) Id. at 344. (64.) Id. at 343-44. (65.) Gideon v. Wainwright, 153 So. 2d 299, 300-01 (Fla. 1963); Times Wire Services, Gideon Happy After Acquittal in Famed Case, ST. PETERSBURG TIMES, Aug. 6, 1963, at 1-B. "Gideon sp......