Harrison v. Wainwright
Decision Date | 12 January 1971 |
Docket Number | No. O--55,O--55 |
Citation | 243 So.2d 427 |
Parties | George R. HARRISON, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Adult Corrections, Respondent. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Louis O. Frost, Jr., Public Defender; and Gerald Sohn, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
No appearance for appellee.
Petitioner has filed an original habeas corpus action in this court by which he seeks to be released from prison, his conviction by a jury on charges of armed robbery notwithstanding, or, alternatively, that this court order his conviction and sentence to be for naught and require that a new trial be held.
The sole ground for release or new trial advanced by petitioner is that the State failed to provide him with appointed counsel at the preliminary hearing during which the robbery victim identified him as the robber and that such failure was a denial of his right to counsel at a critical stage in the criminal process. Coleman v. Alabama, 399 U.S. 1, 90 S.Ct. 1999, 26 L.Ed.2d 387, decided on June 22, 1970, is cited as controlling authority in the premises by petitioner.
The point advanced as phrased by petitioner begs the question. In denominating a preliminary hearing as a critical stage in the criminal process, petitioner ignores the many holdings in this jurisdiction stating that a preliminary hearing is not a critical stage in the prosecutive process. Only recently, our Supreme Court in Sangaree v. Hamlin, 235 So.2d 729, reaffirmed the principle in question by stating:
'* * * a preliminary hearing is not a step in due process of law and is not a prerequisite to a criminal prosecution or the filing of an indictment or information.' (Citing Baugus v. State, Fla., 141 So.2d 264, cert. den. 371 U.S. 879, 83 S.Ct. 153, 9 L.Ed.2d 117)
In Coleman, the Supreme Court recognized the holdings of the Alabama courts that a preliminary hearing is not a required step in an Alabama prosecution, but nevertheless ruled that the test of the criticality of a step in that process did not rest on whether such step--in this case a preliminary hearing--was a required step in the process. Rather, the test invoked to determine the necessity of presence of counsel was '* * * whether potential substantial prejudice to defendant's rights inheres in the particular confrontation and the ability of counsel to help avoid that prejudice.' (90 S.Ct. Page 2002) Thus, although Florida courts have held, as noted above, that a preliminary hearing is not a critical stage in the criminal process, apparently under Coleman the determination of right to counsel at any given stage of the prosecution must rest not upon whether the particular stage is one which is required as part of the prosecutive process but rather upon '* * * whether the presence of his counsel is necessary to preserve the defendant's basic right to a fair trial * * *.' (90 S.Ct. Page 2002) Applying the 'potential substantial prejudice' test to determine criticality rather than the 'required step' test, the Coleman court held that a preliminary hearing is a critical stage of the prosecutive process in the State of Alabama.
Petitioner contends that the United States Supreme Court's decision in Coleman v. Alabama, supra, dictates a similar ruling in the case at bar. In Coleman, the court stated that failure to have assistance of counsel in an Alabama preliminary hearing was potentially prejudicial because:
The reasons advanced by the court in Coleman for invoking the resultant rule in Alabama do not obtain under Florida law. It is of no consequence here that the presiding judge at a preliminary hearing to determine probable cause prior to indictment or information may refuse to bind the accused over. The prosecuting officer in Florida is empowered to proceed with the filing of an information against the accused even if no probable cause was found in a preliminary hearing. Sangaree v. Hamlin, supra, and State v. Hernandez, 217 So.2d 109 (Fla.1968).
Moreover, Section 909.04, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., authorizes the holding of a preliminary hearing at the request of the defendant during which the issue of probable cause may be tested if it is believed, as indicated by the court in Coleman, that the exposure of fatal weaknesses in the State's case may lead to the dismissal of the charges. We recognize that in a practical sense, assistance of counsel is invariably necessary to assert the rights of defendants discussed herein. Yet, under Florida law, no defendant can long be without benefit of counsel inasmuch as Section 27.59, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., expressly empowers the public defender and his assistants to inquire of all persons incarcerated for 48 hours or more and to tender them advice and counsel regarding their rights.
The need for skilled examination of the witnesses to expose weaknesses in the State's case...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Richardson v. State
...So.2d 633, 635 (Fla.1967).21 399 U.S. 1, 90 S.Ct. 1999, 26 L.Ed.2d 387 (1969).22 Id. at 9, 90 S.Ct. at 2003.23 See Harrison v. Wainwright, 243 So.2d 427 (Fla.App.1st 1971), concluding that Coleman is not applicable in Florida because of differences between preliminary hearings in Florida and ...
-
Miller v. State
...Coleman command reversal in this appeal? We think not for two reasons. First, Judge Spector speaking for the court in Harrison v. Wainwright, Fla.App.1971, 243 So.2d 427, held that the rule pronounced in Coleman did not apply in florida. Secondly, even if we assume that Coleman does apply w......
-
Conner v. State, 71-35
...Fla.App.1968, 215 So.2d 790; Sangaree v. Hamlin, Fla.1970, 235 So.2d 729; Anderson v. State, Fla.1970, 241 So.2d 390; Harrison v. Wainwright, Fla.App.1971, 243 So.2d 427. Conner did not mention in his additional brief the 'occurrence' in the Justice of the Peace Court, and there is nothing ......
-
Sellers v. State
...to the decision of the Supreme Court in Coleman v. Alabama, 399 U.S. 1, 90 S.Ct. 1999, 26 L.Ed.2d 387 (1970); and that Harrison v. Wainwright, Fla.App.1971, 243 So.2d 427, held that the Coleman decision does not apply in Florida. We note that no objection on this ground was raised in the tr......