Huckelbury v. State, 75--1497
| Decision Date | 15 September 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 75--1497,75--1497 |
| Citation | 337 So.2d 400 |
| Parties | Charles Albert HUCKELBURY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
David A. Maney of Gordon & Maney, Tampa, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Davis G. Anderson, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
The trial court refused to set aside the conviction of Charles Albert Huckelbury, which was based on his negotiated plea of guilty to first degree murder entered by him while he was represented by an Assistant Public Defender who was not a member of the Florida Bar. Huckelbury appeals. We reverse.
Appellant Huckelbury was charged with first degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder. After finding him to be insolvent, the trial court directed the Office of the Public Defender of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit to represent him. The Honorable Douglas M. Midgley, Public Defender for that circuit, assigned one of his assistants, Lawrence A. Pearce, Jr., to represent Huckelbury. Pearce had been employed by Midgley some months before, after having represented to Midgley that he was a member of the Florida Bar. While actively representing Huckelbury, Pearce conducted certain negotiations with the Office of the State Attorney, and on November 12, 1974, Huckelbury accompanied by Pearce, pled guilty to first degree murder before the Honorable William Lamar Rose, Circuit Judge. From the colloquy it appears the plea was freely and voluntarily entered after consultation between Huckelbury and his counsel, Pearce. A factual basis was developed and the court explained the consequences of the plea to Huckelbury. As a result of plea negotiations, the State waived the death penalty and nolle prossed the conspiracy charge. The trial court accepted Huckelbury's plea and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
Subsequently, Huckelbury became aware that Pearce was not a qualified lawyer at the time of his representation. Huckelbury retained private counsel and pursuant to RCrP 3.850, he sought to revoke his plea and have the court vacate his judgment of conviction and sentence on grounds that he was not represented by qualified counsel. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial judge on September 17, 1975, denied appellant's motion, holding '1. That the plea of guilty of the Defendant on November 12, 1974, which is incorporated into this Order, was freely and voluntarily given after extensive examination by the Court.
2. Larry Pearce, at the time of his representation of the Defendant, was a law school graduate who had passed the Florida bar examination.
3. The pleadings and actions before this court demonstrated Larry Pearce's competence and ability in his representation of the Defendant.'
The trial judge viewed the issue on Huckelbury's petition to be solely whether Huckelbury was afforded qualified representation by Pearce. And, although the original record is devoid of any predicate for so much of the trial judge's findings in Number 2 as states that Pearce had passed the Florida Bar Examination, we do not quarrel with the remaining findings. The testimony reveals Pearce to be a law school graduate; however, the State stipulated that he was not a licensed member of the Florida Bar at the time of his representation of Huckelbury. Since the record as originally furnished us did not disclose why Pearce was not admitted, we relinquished jurisdiction to the trial court directing a further evidentiary hearing to develop the reasons why Pearce was not a qualified member of the Florida Bar.
As supplemented, the record now before this court reveals the Florida Board of Bar Examiners in January 1975, found that Pearce received a J.D. degree from Creighton University in 1974, prior to being employed as an Assistant Public Defender. Although his grade on the Florida Bar Examination was above the minimum passing grade, the results had been impounded by the Supreme Court of Florida, since Pearce failed to meet the standards of character for applicants to the Florida Bar required under the provisions of Art. IV, § 20, of the Rules of Supreme Court of Florida Relating to the Admissions to the Bar. Specifically, the Board determined that Pearce failed to reveal certain prior school attendance and employment, altered certain of his academic transcripts, and testified falsely before the Board on various matters, including claiming to be unemployed at a time when he was actually working for the Public Defender of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit. 1
With the landmark case of Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799, the principle became well established that an indigent defendant charged with a felony is entitled to court-appointed counsel unless he understandingly and intelligently waives that right. Huckelbury had been declared indigent by the court and requested counsel. While he did not have the right to representation by any particular member of the Bar, he was entitled to be advised and represented at every critical stage of the case by counsel certified by the State to be competent and of good moral standing. In Florida the Legislature responded to the constitutional requirement to appoint counsel for indigents in establishing the Office of Public...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. J.R.
...e.g., Solina , 709 F.2d at 161, 166-169 (2d Cir. 1983) ; United States v. Novak , 903 F.2d 883 (2d Cir. 1990) ; Huckelbury v. State , 337 So.2d 400, 402-403 (Fla. App. 1976) ; People v. Felder , 47 N.Y.2d 287, 291, 293, 418 N.Y.S.2d 295, 391 N.E.2d 1274 (1979) ; see also Annotation, Crimina......
-
People v. Johnson
...for purposes of the Sixth Amendment because he had been denied admission to the bar solely on character grounds. (Huckelbury v. State (Fla.App.1976) 337 So.2d 400, 403 ["The right to court-appointed counsel presupposes appointment of counsel fully accredited by competency and moral standard......
-
State v. Green
...136, 530 N.Y.S.2d 472 (Sup.Ct.1988); People v. Felder, 47 N.Y.2d 287, 418 N.Y.S.2d 295, 391 N.E.2d 1274 (1979); Huckelbury v. State, 337 So.2d 400 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1976); Leonard v. Walsh, 73 Ill.App.2d 45, 220 N.E.2d 57 (1966). The risks to individual clients and to the integrity of the le......
-
State v. J.R.
... ... See, e.g., ... Solina, 709 F.2d at 161, 166-169 (2d Cir.1983); ... United States v. Novak, 903 F.2d 883 (2d Cir.1990); ... Huckelbury v. State, 337 So.2d 400, 402-403 ... ( Fla.App.1976 ); People v. Felder, 47 N.Y.2d ... 287, 291, 293, 418 N.Y.S.2d 295, 391 N.E.2d 1274 (1979); ... ...