Wilson v. Wainwright, 0--278
| Decision Date | 27 April 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 0--278,0--278 |
| Parties | Linton Edward WILSON, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender, for petitioner.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and William W. Herring, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Petitioner was convicted of forcible rape and robbery pursuant to his plea of nolo contendere to both charges and sentenced to life imprisonment on each. No direct appeal was taken from said judgments and sentences.
Petitioner has now filed this original habeas corpus action in which he asserts his constitutional right to appeal was frustrated by state action and asks that we permit him a belated review of his case pursuant to the Hollingshead doctrine.
Petitioner's claim of frustration rests upon his assertion that immediately after he was sentenced he informed his court-appointed defense counsel of his desire to appeal, and said counsel refused to perfect and prosecute such an appeal. If it is like petitioner says it is, he is entitled to a full appellate review of his convictions and sentences.
To determine this, we issued our rule nisi. Initially, respondent filed a return conceding petitioner's right to a belated appeal unless it could be shown that petitioner did not make known to appointed counsel his desire to appeal. To that end, respondent moved for leave to take the deposition of petitioner's appointed counsel so that inquiry could be made concerning the verity of petitioner's claim that his appointed counsel refused to appeal when asked to do so. We entered our order requiring quiring appointed counsel to give testimony in the premises concerning communications between him and his client, notwithstanding the well known canon of legal ethics prohibiting disclosure of confidential information between attorney and client.
The history and purpose of said ethical provision is too well known to require elaboration. Sufficeth to say its purpose is to serve as a shield to guard against the disclosure of confidential information revealed to the attorney in whom the client has placed his trust and confidence. However, the privileged character, of such communications was never intended to be used as a sword by a client against his attorney. The latter is not required to stand mute and defenseless when his client hurls unfounded accusations of wrongdoing and ineptness against him. To that end, the Florida Code of Ethics Disciplinary Rule 4--101(C)(3), relating to the preservation of confidences and secrets of a client, provides that:
'(C) A lawyer may reveal:
(3) Confidences or secrets necessary * * * to defend himself or his employees or associates against an accusation of wrongful conduct.'
Thus, we hold that a lawyer who represents a client in any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bennett v. State, 47700
...rule would subject the lawyer to any kind of scurrilous and unjust attack. . . . Similar rules have been followed in: Wilson v. Wainwright, 248 So.2d 249 (Fla.App.1971); Battle v. State, 8 N.C.App. 192, 174 S.E.2d 299 (1970); State v. Kruchten, 101 Ariz. 186, 417 P.2d 510 (1966); Peppers v.......
-
Owen v. State
...lawyers serving as public defenders and their assistants. Reed v. State, 640 So.2d 1094, 1097 (Fla. 1994) (quoting Wilson v. Wainwright, 248 So.2d 249, 250 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)).9 In the present proceeding, by filing ineffectiveness and conflict of interest claims against trial counsel in th......
-
Mower v. State
...the guilty plea was the product of plea-bargaining arrangements between the State and the defendant. We implied as much in Wilson v. Wainwright, 248 So.2d 249. Our sister court so held in Johnson v. State, 248 So.2d 225.' (254 So.2d at page In the latter we said: 'The sole question before u......
-
Turner v. State
...his representation where such revelation is necessary to establish whether his conduct was wrongful as accused." Wilson v. Wainwright, 248 So.2d 249, 259 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971). See also Laughner v. United States, 373 F.2d 326 (5th Cir.1967); Bennett v. State, 293 So.2d 1 (Miss.1974) (citing W......