Pilla v. State, 84-1943
| Decision Date | 06 November 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-1943,84-1943 |
| Citation | 477 So.2d 1088,10 Fla. L. Weekly 2488 |
| Parties | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2488 John PILLA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Allen J. DeWeese, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Carolyn V. McCann, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
Appellant was convicted of driving while his license was suspended. He was sentenced to two years in prison, an enhanced sentence based upon consideration of six prior convictions, five of which were uncounseled convictions.
Prior to sentencing the state filed a notice to declare the defendant an habitual offender, based upon six prior convictions for driving while his license was suspended. The defense filed a response alleging that in five of the six convictions listed he was not represented by counsel, nor was counsel waived, and he could not afford counsel.
The state contended in the trial court, and here, that it was proper for the court to consider the uncounseled convictions until they were set aside in a post conviction proceeding. That legal position is unsound. The Supreme Court of the United States in Baldasar v. Illinois, 446 U.S. 222, 100 S.Ct. 1585, 64 L.Ed.2d 169 (1980), held an uncounseled conviction may not be used to enhance a sentence on a subsequent conviction unless the defendant waived his right to counsel. See also Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25, 92 S.Ct. 2006, 32 L.Ed.2d 530 (1972); Harrell v. State, 469 So.2d 169 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Hayes v. State, 468 So.2d 470 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985).
Accordingly, the sentence is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court to entertain further proof regarding the alleged prior convictions, and to sentence appellant in accordance with the foregoing authorities.
REVERSED AND REMANDED with directions.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hlad v. State
...no prior uncounseled misdemeanor conviction may be used for subsequent enhancement under any circumstances. See also Pilla v. State, 477 So.2d 1088 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). While that was the minority view in Baldasar, it was not the view of Justices Blackmun, White, Rehnquist, Powell and Chief......
-
Hlad v. State
...So.2d 762 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), because of its conflict with State v. Troehler, 546 So.2d 109 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), and Pilla v. State, 477 So.2d 1088 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). We have jurisdiction under article V, section 3(b)(3) of the Florida Hlad was convicted of driving under the influence of......
-
Evrard v. State, 85-1877
...enhance a sentence on a subsequent conviction unless the defendant waived his right to counsel in the first proceeding. Pilla v. State, 477 So.2d 1088 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Hayes v. State, 468 So.2d 470 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). See also Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25, 92 S.Ct. 2006, 32 L.Ed.......
-
Lowe v. State, 87-213
...may not be used to enhance a sentence on a subsequent conviction unless the defendant waived his right to counsel. Pilla v. State, 477 So.2d 1088 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). Where a defendant raises the issue of an uncounseled conviction, the State must show by a preponderance of the evidence that......