Weeks v. State
| Decision Date | 16 July 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 63-416,63-416 |
| Citation | 156 So.2d 36 |
| Parties | John Matthew WEEKS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
John Matthew Weeks, in pro. per.
Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and Leonard R. Mellon, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before CARROLL, HORTON and TILLMAN PEARSON, JJ.
The appellant Weeks filed in the Criminal Court of Record, Dade County, Florida, a motion under Criminal Procedure Rule #1, 31 F.S.A., to vacate his judgment of conviction and sentence for the crime of armed robbery. The motion was denied and appellant took this appeal from the order denying his motion to vacate. Subsequent to a denial of the motion, the trial court adjudicated the appellant insolvent.
After the notice of appeal was filed with this court, the appellant requested the appointment of legal counsel to assist him in the preparation and handling of his appeal. The motion was granted and this court temporarily relinquished jurisdiction to the criminal court of record for the purpose of designating the Public Defender of Dade County or other appropriate counsel to represent appellant on this appeal. Cf. Donald v. State, Fla.App.1963, 154 So.2d 357.
The state has now moved to vacate this court's order relinquishing jurisdiction for the purpose of the appointment of counsel upon the ground that the appeal now pending before this court is to review an order denying a motion which collaterally attacks the judgment of conviction and sentence as contrasted to a direct appeal from the judgment of conviction and sentence rendered in the criminal case. It is the state's position that an indigent's right to appointment of counsel to represent him in an appellate court is confined to the perfecting of a direct appeal from the original judgment of conviction and sentence and not appeals from orders which resulted from proceedings collaterally attacking such judgment. We have been unable to find any authority subsequent to Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353, 83 S.Ct. 814, 9 L.Ed.2d 811, which requires or excuses the appointment of counsel under the circumstances delineated here. It is true, as pointed out by the state, that the United States Supreme Court, in Douglas v. California, supra, made pointed references to the fact that it was not confronted in that case with the denial of counsel for the preparation of 'a petition for discretionary or mandatory review beyond the stage in the appellate process at which the claims have once been presented by a lawyer and passed upon by an appellate court.' The court further indicated that its opinion dealt only with the 'first appeal' granted as a matter of right to all persons.
The state concludes that the language of the Supreme Court of the United States in the Douglas case, supra; and in Gilpin v. United States, 6th Cir., 265 F.2d 203; Tubbs v. United States, 10th Cir., 249 F.2d 37; United States v. Caufield, 7th Cir., 207 F.2d 278; Donovan v. United States, 10th Cir., 205 F.2d 557; Richardson v. United States, 10th Cir., 199 F.2d 333; and Crowe v. United States, 4th Cir., 175 F.2d 799, is authority for the proposition that an indigent, convicted of a crime, has a constitutional right to representation by counsel on direct review of his conviction but not in proceedings...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Weeks, 32875
...upon an appeal from an adverse ruling in a collateral assault on his conviction and sentence. The decision under review is Weeks v. State, Fla.App., 156 So.2d 36. The state has appealed and simultaneously petitioned for certiorari. The District Court has sua sponte certified its decision to......
-
Webster v. State, E-251
... ... We are not unmindful of the decisions of our sister courts in Weeks v ... State, 156 So.2d 36 (Fla.App.1963), and Dias v. State, 155 So.2d 662 (Fla.App.1963), holding that an insolvent appellant is entitled to be furnished counsel on an appeal from an order denying his motion to vacate under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, and it is the policy of this court when ... ...
-
Dias v. State
...Rule 1. Under date of July 16, 1963, our sister court, the Third District Court of Appeal, filed an opinion in the case of Weeks v. State of Florida, 156 So.2d 36, wherein it granted a motion of the defendant-appellant Weeks similar to the one here considered. The appellate court, in granti......
-
Mills v. State, 4194
...the services of appointed counsel in such further proceedings as are necessary. State v. Weeks, Fla.1964, 166 So.2d 892, reversing Fla.App., 156 So.2d 36. Reversed and ALLEN, Acting C. J., and SHANNON and WHITE, JJ., concur. ...