Williams v. State
| Decision Date | 04 September 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 68--146,68--146 |
| Citation | 214 So.2d 29 |
| Parties | Leroy WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Lee R. Horton, Jr., Public Defender, and J. Michael McCarthy, Special Asst. Public Defender, Lakeland, for appellant.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and William D. Roth, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.
This is an appeal by Leroy Williams, defendant below, from a judgment and sentence in a criminal case in which he, along with two other co-defendants, pled quilty to the crime of robbery.
The defendant was adjudged insolvent and the public defender was appointed as his counsel. This same public defender was appointed to represent Jimmy Williams and Carlton Mitchell, Jr., who were named as co-defendants in the information for robbery as filed against Leroy Williams, the appellant herein.
The voluntariness of the guilty plea of the appellant is not questioned in this case.
The first question presented for our determination is whether it is necessary to an appeal for objection to be made concerning the point of joint representation. Counsel for appellant concedes that the record is void of any such objection.
The courts of this state are divided on this point. The Fourth District Court of Appeal in the case of Youngblood v. State, Fla.App.1968, 206 So.2d 665, at page 666, stated:
'* * * in view of the fundamental nature of the right involved, objection is not a critical factor.'
The Third District Court of Appeal in the case of Belton v. State, Fla.App.1968, 211 So.2d 238, declined to follow the Youngblood case and held that it would not entertain the appeal absent an objection to joint representation or request for individual counsel.
We are inclined to follow the Youngblood decision and hold that no objection is necessary in view of the fundamental right involved.
The second question presented for our determination on this appeal is whether the appellant was denied the effective assistance of counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States by virtue of the fact that appellant was denied individual representation as the same attorney represented all defendants.
The appellant relies for reversal on the decision by the Supreme Court of Florida in Baker v. State, Fla.1967, 202 So.2d 563, at pages 565-566, which states:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dunbar v. State, 68--230
...Youngblood v. State, Fla.App.1968, 206 So.2d 665, with Belton v. State, Fla.App.1968, 211 So.2d 238, 239. In the recent case of Williams v. State, 214 So.2d 29, opinion filed September 4, 1968, this court aligned itself with the Fourth District and held that 'no objection is necessary in vi......
-
Belton v. State, 37662
...52 (2d Dist.Ct.App.Fla.1968), where the Second District Court of Appeal modified its earlier view as stated in Williams v. State, 214 So.2d 29 (2d Dist.Ct.App.Fla.1968). A different view has been taken in Youngblood v. State, 206 So.2d 665 (4th We find that the District Court correctly disp......
-
Moore v. State
...said motion to withdraw is granted, and the order or judgment appealed is hereby affirmed upon the authority of Williams v. State, Fla.App.1968, 214 So.2d 29; Belton v. State, Fla.1968, 217 So.2d 97; State v. Youngblood, Fla.1968, 217 So.2d 98; State v. Williams, Fla.1969, 219 So.2d ...
-
Williams v. Wainwright
...appellate court stated that "the voluntariness of the guilty plea of the appellant is not questioned in this case." Williams v. State of Florida, 214 So.2d 29 (Fla.App.1968). Since this opinion was referred to by the court below, it may be that the court thought that Williams had failed to ......