Williams v. State, 472 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 1985). · Go Syfert
Search
Williams v. State, 472 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 1985). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 4× by 4 distinct cases, 1997–2012 · …evidentiary hearings are adversarial in nature, and the rules of evidence and procedure are mystifyingly complex to all but the most sophisticated non-lawyers. at p. 740 ✓
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases, 1998–2012 · …the need for substantial legal research. at p. 740 ✓
86 citation events (49 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: THOMAS WARREN HALSEY vs STATE OF FLORIDA (fladistctapp, 2023-07-21)
Treatment trajectory · 1985 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1985 2005 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 35 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) THOMAS WARREN HALSEY vs STATE OF FLORIDA (2×) also: Cited as authority (rule)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2023 · signal: cf. · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
williams failed to produce the kinds of expert witnesses which may have been helpful in proving his claim . . . .
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Johnson v. State (2×) also: Cited as authority (rule)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1998 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
evidentiary hearings are adversarial in nature, and the rules of evidence and procedure are mystifyingly complex to all but the most sophisticated non-lawyers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Simmons v. State (2×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
In determining whether to appoint counsel to assist an indigent defendant in postconviction proceedings, trial courts should consider four factors: (1) the “adversary nature of the proceeding;” (2) “its complexity;” (3) “the need for an evi-dentiary hearing;” and (4) “the need for substantial legal research.” Williams v. State, 472 So.2d 738, 740 (Fla.1985) (quoting Graham, 372 So.2d at 1366).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Havard v. State (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
Id. at 1365-66 ; Williams v. State, 472 So.2d 738, 740 (Fla.1985).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Woodward v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
In determining whether to appoint counsel to assist an indigent defendant in post-conviction proceedings, trial courts should consider four factors: (1) the "adversary nature of the proceeding"; (2) "its complexity"; (3) "the need for an evidentiary hearing"; and (4) *393 "the need for substantial legal research." Williams v. State, 472 So.2d 738, 740 (Fla. 1985) (quoting Graham, 372 So.2d at 1366).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Henderson v. State (3×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2006 · confidence medium
"The determination that an evidentiary *655 hearing is necessary in itself implies that three of the four elements are involved." Williams v. State, 472 So.2d 738, 740 (Fla. 1985) (stating, "[e]videntiary hearings are adversarial in nature, and the rules of evidence and procedure are mystifyingly complex to all but the most sophisticated non-lawyers").
cited Cited as authority (rule) Ganote v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
These "are all important elements which may require the appointment of counsel." Williams v. State, 472 So.2d 738, 740 (Fla.1985) (citing Graham v. State, 372 So.2d 1363, 1366 (Fla.1979)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Thomas v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2003 · confidence medium
We repeat that counsel need not be appointed every time there is an evidentiary hearing, but “any doubt about the need for counsel must be resolved in favor of the indigent defendant.” Williams v. State, 472 So.2d 738, 740 (Fla.1985).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wheeler v. State (2×) also: Cited "see"
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2002 · confidence medium
Graham, 372 So.2d at 1366 ; Williams v. State, 472 So.2d 738, 740 (Fla.1985); Florence *97 v. State, 754 So.2d 175, 176 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Johnson v. State, 711 So.2d 112, 115 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Isaac v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1998 · confidence medium
Williams v. State, 472 So.2d 738, 740 (Fla.1985); Davis v. State, 499 So.2d 24 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Witherspoon v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1994 · confidence medium
William v. State, 472 So.2d 738, 740 (Fla. 1985).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Gordon v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1988 · confidence medium
In Williams v. State, 472 So.2d 738, 740 (Fla. 1985), the Florida Supreme Court said: We hold that the need for an evidentiary hearing does not automatically require appointment of counsel.
cited Cited "see" OSCAR A. TORO, SR. v. STATE OF FLORIDA
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
See Williams v. State, 472 So. 2d 738, 740 (Fla. 1985); Graham v. State, 372 So. 2d 1363, 1365-66 (Fla. 1979).
discussed Cited "see" Daniel Chavez v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See Williams v. State, 472 So.2d 738, 740 (Fla.1985) (holding that the trial court should have appointed postconviction counsel. where defendant had the equivalent of a second-grade education, was at best semiliterate, was totally unsophisticated about court procedures, and was unable to properly present his-case at the evidentiary hearing); Belizaire v. State, 765 So.2d 892, 893 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (holding that defendant was' entitled to have postconviction counsel appointed for the ’ evidentiary hearing where defendant had a third-grade education, was unable to read, lacked proficiency wi…
discussed Cited "see" John Anthony Maricevich v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See Williams v. State, 472 So.2d 738, 740 (Fla.1985) (finding a trial court abused its discretion in’ denying a motion for counsel for'a postconviction hearing where the petitioner was semi-literate, had only a second-grade education, and raised a colorable claim that required an evidentiary hearing).
discussed Cited "see" Jones v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See Williams v. State, 472 So.2d 738, 740 (Fla.1985) (holding, based on lack of 3.850 movant’s sophistication which made “clear that he was unable to meet the technical requirements of going forward with the burden of proving his initial allegations, irrespective of the merits of those allegations,” that any doubt regarding the need for the assistance of counsel should have been resolved in his favor); Woodward v. State, 992 So.2d 391, 393 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (noting that “[wjithout medical records or expert testimony to support his claim that trial counsel should have pursued a defens…
cited Cited "see" Gonzalez v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See Williams v. State, 472 So.2d 738, 740 (Fla.1985).
cited Cited "see" Seavey v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See Williams v. State, 472 So.2d 738 (Fla.1985); Graham v. State, 372 So.2d 1363 (Fla.1979).
cited Cited "see" Melton v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See Williams v. State, 472 So.2d 738 (Fla. 1985).
cited Cited "see" Bynum v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See Williams v. State, 472 So.2d 738 (Fla.1985); Lee v. State, 801 So.2d 1022 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).
examined Cited "see" Jackson v. State (3×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See Williams v. State, 472 So.2d 738 (Fla.1985); Lee v. State, 801 So.2d 1022 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).
cited Cited "see" Osborne v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See Williams, 472 So.2d at 740 .
cited Cited "see" Gutierrez v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See Williams v. State, 472 So.2d 738, 740 (Fla. 1985); Rivero v. State, 796 So.2d 633, 634 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Johnson v. State, 711 So.2d 112, 115 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).
cited Cited "see" Stone v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See Williams v. State, 472 So.2d 738 (Fla. 1985); Hylleberg v. State, 729 So.2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999).
cited Cited "see" Lee v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See Williams v. State, 472 So.2d 738 (Fla.1985).
cited Cited "see" Mikell v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See Williams v. State, 472 So.2d 738 (Fla.1985); Cole v. State, 758 So.2d 1289 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000), review denied, 780 So.2d 912 (Fla.2001).
cited Cited "see" Baity v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See Williams v. State, 472 So.2d 738 (Fla.1985); Graham v. State, 372 So.2d 1363 (Fla.1979); Rogers v. State, 702 So.2d 607 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).
examined Cited "see" Belizaire v. State (3×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See Williams v. State, 472 So.2d 738, 740 (Fla.1985); Rogers v. State, 702 So.2d 607, 609 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).
examined Cited "see" Florence v. State (3×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See Williams v. State, 472 So.2d 738, 740 (Fla. 1985); Rogers v. State, 702 So.2d 607, 609 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).
cited Cited "see" Toliver v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Williams v. State, 472 So.2d 738, 740 (Fla.1985); Graham v. State, 372 So.2d 1363 , 1366 (Fla.1979).
cited Cited "see" Edwards v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See Williams v. State, 472 So.2d 738, 740 (Fla.1985); see also Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).
cited Cited "see" Arias v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See Williams v. State, 472 So.2d 738 (Fla.1985).
cited Cited "see" Gonzalez v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See Williams v. State, 472 So.2d 738 (Fla.1985).
cited Cited "see" Goines v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See Williams v. State, 472 So.2d 738 (Fla.1985).
cited Cited "see" Pentecost v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See generally Williams v. State, 472 So.2d 738 (Fla.1985).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Sylvester WILLIAMS, Petitioner,
v.
STATE of Florida, Respondent.
66075.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Jul 3, 1985.
472 So. 2d 738
Ehrlich.
Cited by 48 opinions  |  Published

[*739] Sylvester Williams, in pro. per.

Michael E. Allen, Public Defender, Tallahassee, for petitioner.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and John W. Tiedemann, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for respondent.

EHRLICH, Justice.

This cause is before the Court for response to a question certified as being of great public importance pursuant to jurisdiction granted in article V, section 3(b)(4), Florida Constitution. The case below is reported at 455 So.2d 543 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).

Petitioner was charged with first-degree murder, but entered a negotiated plea to second-degree murder with a firearm. He was sentenced to life with a three-year minimum mandatory sentence because of the firearm.

Petitioner later sought post-conviction relief because he had been told he would be sentenced to no more than fifteen years under the bargain. He also claimed that certain medication he was given in jail impaired his ability to understand the plea negotiations and thus vitiated the voluntariness of his plea.

The trial judge ordered an evidentiary hearing on the motion but declined petitioner's request for appointed counsel. The court found that the issues before it were not complex or novel and thus, even though petitioner has only the equivalent of a second-grade education, is at best semi-literate and is totally unsophisticated about court procedures, petitioner was capable of representing himself in the adversarial evidentiary hearing.

On appeal, the First District Court of Appeal affirmed, but certified the issue as being of great public importance.

WHEN A TRIAL COURT HAS DETERMINED THAT IT IS NECESSARY TO HOLD AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON ALLEGATIONS RAISED IN A MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF, IS COURT-APPOINTED COUNSEL FOR AN INDIGENT DEFENDANT MANDATORY OR IS SUCH APPOINTMENT PROPERLY LEFT TO[*740] THE DISCRETION OF THE TRIAL COURT?

455 So.2d at 544.

We hold that the need for an evidentiary hearing does not automatically require appointment of counsel. Nonetheless, we hold that the trial judge's discretion must be exercised as set forth in Graham v. State, 372 So.2d 1363 (Fla. 1979). Finding that the trial judge here deviated from the teachings of Graham, we quash the decision of the district court and remand to the trial court for a new evidentiary hearing with counsel to be appointed for Williams.

In Graham, this Court set out four factors to be considered by the trial judge in deciding whether to appoint counsel in collateral proceedings for post-conviction relief. "The adversary nature of the proceeding, its complexity, the need for an evidentiary hearing, or the need for substantial legal research are all important elements which may require the appointment of counsel." 372 So.2d at 1366. The determination that an evidentiary hearing is necessary in itself implies that three of the four elements are involved. Evidentiary hearings are adversarial in nature, and the rules of evidence and procedure are mystifyingly complex to all but the most sophisticated non-lawyers. In Graham, we reaffirmed our earlier admonition, enunciated in Hooks v. State, 253 So.2d 424 (Fla. 1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 1044, 92 S.Ct. 1330, 31 L.Ed.2d 587 (1972), that any doubt about the need for counsel must be resolved in favor of the indigent defendant.

Williams's lack of education and lack of sophistication make clear that he was unable to meet the technical requirements of going forward with the burden of proving his initial allegations, irrespective of the merits of those allegations. The record of the hearing shows that the judge repeatedly had to instruct Williams in examination techniques and to restrain him from testifying himself when he was supposedly questioning witnesses. Williams failed to produce the kinds of expert witnesses which may have been helpful in proving his claim that his plea was affected by drug-induced confusion. On this record and on the face of the pleadings which raised the colorable claim which required an evidentiary hearing, abundant doubt is raised concerning Williams's need for the assistance of counsel. That doubt should have been resolved in his favor.

The decision of the district court is quashed. The cause is remanded to the trial court with instructions that Williams have counsel appointed to assist him and that a new evidentiary hearing be held.

It is so ordered.

BOYD, C.J., and ADKINS, OVERTON and SHAW, JJ., concur.

ALDERMAN and McDONALD, JJ., dissent.