State v. Barber

• Decision Date: 12 June 1974
• Docket Number: No. 44880,44880
• Parties: STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Edward Wilson BARBER and Charles Richard Barber, Respondents.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

Page 7

301 So.2d 7

STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Edward Wilson BARBER and Charles Richard Barber, Respondents.

No. 44880.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 12, 1974.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 18, 1974.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Richard W. Prospect, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.

Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender, and David J. Busch, Asst. Public Defender, for respondents.

DEKLE, Justice.

Jurisdiction vests in this Court purusant to Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla.Const., F.S.A., on the basis of direct conflict between the decision of the First District Court of Appeal in this cause, reported at 286 So.2d 23 (1973); Mancini v. State, 273 So.2d 371 (Fla.1973); State v. Owens, 233 So.2d 389 (Fla.1970); State v. Wright, 224 So.2d 300 (Fla.1969); Chester v. State, 276 So.2d 76 (Fla.App.2d 1973).

Respondents were convicted of two counts of breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny, and were sentenced to two years imprisonment. On appeal, they alleged that they had been denied effective assistance of counsel at a critical stage of the proceedings, in that the public defender had failed to preserve for review the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to support their convictions by making appropriate motions (for directed verdict, for new trial, etc.). The particular point on which they feel the evidence was insufficient was the value of the property involved in the larceny.

The DCA recognized the rule of Chester v. State, Supra, that the question of inadequate representation cannot properly be raised for the first time on a direct appeal from an adverse judgment, since it is not a matter that has been previously ruled upon by the trial court. The DCA then stated (286 So.2d at 25) that this 'puts us into about the same boat, so far as considering the question of inadequate representation of counsel on appeal, as we are in the question of reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence when defendants' counsel did not preserve the right to such review' by appropriate motion. The DCA also noted that this Court has consistently construed F.A.R. 6.16, 32 F.S.A., as meaning that, unless the question of sufficiency of the evidence is first presented to the trial court by way of proper motion, that question is not reviewable by direct appeal. Mancini v. State, State v. Owens, State v. Wright, Supra. The DCA also noted Wainwright v. Simpson, 360 F.2d 307 (CA5, 1966), in which the ineffectiveness of court-appointed counsel deprived the defendant of his right to move for a new trial and to appeal, thus entitling him to post-conviction relief (often referred to as a 'Rule One' proceeding; see Cr.P.R. 3. 850, 33 F.S.A.).

The DCA stated that it was faced with the following alternatives:

(1) Sua sponte dismissal of the appeal directing the respondents to go back to the trial court level on a 'Rule One' proceeding; or

(2) refusal to abide by Chester v. State, Supra, applying the decision in Wainwright v. Simpson, Supra, and Sua sponte reversal for new trial on the ground that the public defender's acts constituted 'state action' and inadequate representation of counsel; or

(3) in the interests of justice placing its own construction on F.A.R. 6.16 and granting a review of the evidence.

The DCA chose the last alternative, held that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain the conviction, and reversed and remanded for a new trial. It was a poor choice of alternatives; it was error.

As can readily be seen from the First District's opinion, its decision clearly conflicts with that of the Second District Court of Appeal in Chester v. State, Supra, on the issue of whether inadequate representation of counsel can properly be raised for the first time on direct appeal. This in itself would be sufficient basis for our conflict jurisdiction, but the DCA went further and placed its own construction on F.A.R. 6.16 which directly conflicts with this Court's consistent construction of that rule in Mancini v. State, State v. Owens, and State v. Wright, Supra, as the DCA clearly recognized. Upon these conflicts rests our jurisdiction.

The construction placed upon F.A.R. 6.16 by the district court was erroneous. As we have previously stated in the cases noted above, unless the issue of sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a verdict in a criminal case is first presented to the trial court by way of an appropriate motion, the issue is not reviewable on direct appeal from an adverse judgment. No such appropriate motion having been made in the trial court in this cause, the question of sufficiency of the evidence was not open to appellate review.

As to whether the issue of adequacy of representation by counsel can properly be raised for the first time on a direct appeal, we hold that it cannot properly be raised for the first time on direct appeal, since, as was recognized in Chester, 'it is a matter that has not previously been ruled upon by the trial Court.' An appellate court must confine itself to a review of only those questions which were before the trial court and upon which a ruling adverse to the appealing party was made. Haverty v. State, 258 So.2d 18 (.fla.App.2d 1972); Yost v. State, 243 So.2d 469 (Fla.App.3d 1971); Bertone v. State, 224 So.2d 400 (Fla.App.3d 1969).

Nor may any comfort be found in that portion of F.A.R. 6.16(a) which states: 'The court may also in its discretion, if it deems the interests of justice to require, review any other things said or done in the cause which appear in the appeal record, including instructions to the jury.' It is unnecessary to consider here the questions of whether counsel's failure to make any motion which would preserve the right to appellate review of sufficiency of the evidence would fall within the phrase 'any other things said or done' and whether or not the claimed inadequacy of representation 'appear(s) in the appeal record,' for it is clear, in any event, that the interests of justice do not require review of counsel's claimed inadequacy in this case, since Cr.P.R. 3.850 provides a means by which this issue may properly be resolved in a correct procedural setting in the trial court where evidence may be taken, as was recognized in analogous circumstances in Wainwright v. Simpson, Supra.

Respondents also contend that appellate review of sufficiency of the evidence was proper under F.A.R. 3.7(i) which provides that, in the interests of justice, the appellate court may notice fundamental error apparent in the record even if it has not been made the subject of an assignment of error; their position is that the State failed to prove a Prima facie case, and that this constitutes fundamental error. To accept this contention would be to disregard entirely the holdings in Mancini v. State, State v. Owens, State v. Wright, Supra, all standing for the proposition that sufficiency of the evidence must be raised by appropriate motion in order to be reviewable on direct appeal. Accordingly, we reject this contention. Were we to distinguish in this regard between claims that the evidence failed to establish a Prima facie case, and claims that the evidence was insufficient in some other regards (as, for example, that it was speculative in nature), we would have to emasculate the principle of the above-cited cases; we find no reason to do so. The issues here raised can be reviewed in appropriate post-conviction proceedings under Cr.P.R. 3.850.

It appearing from the record that the only points on appeal argued before the district court were sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction and denial of effective assistance of counsel, and having determined that neither of these issues was properly before that court, which therefore erroneously considered them, the opinion of the district court must be quashed. It appears, however, that respondent...