Rogers v. State, 702 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). · Go Syfert
Search
Rogers v. State, 702 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
16 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Daniel Chavez v. State of Florida (fladistctapp, 2016-05-06)
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Daniel Chavez v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
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 as authority (rule) Jones v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
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…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ganote v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
See Johnson v. State, 711 So.2d 112, 115-16 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Rogers v. State, 702 So.2d 607, 608 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); see also Jackson v. State, 908 So.2d 1183 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Lee v. State, 801 So.2d 1022 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wheeler v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2002 · confidence medium
See Johnson, 711 So.2d at 113 ; Rogers v. State, 702 So.2d 607, 608 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Belizaire v. State, 765 So.2d 892, 893 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Witherspoon v. State, 634 So.2d 208, 209 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Belizaire v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2000 · confidence medium
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 as authority (rule) Florence v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2000 · confidence medium
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" Cox v. State
Fla. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See Jackson v. State, 702 So.2d 607 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Riley v. State, 367 So.2d 1091, 1092 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1979).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Senteno v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1999 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Jackson v. State, 702 So.2d 607 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Johnson v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1998 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See Witherspoon v. State, 634 So.2d 208, 209-10 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (holding that trial court erred in denying appointment of counsel where court had no information concerning petitioner's education or ability to represent himself, petitioner presented no expert testimony concerning competency of defense furnished by trial counsel, petitioner did not call alibi witness to testify at hearing, and effective cross-examination may have revealed that counsel's own problems with federal government interfered with his representation of petitioner); Davis v. State, 499 So.2d 24, 26 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Joseph ROGERS, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
96-4781.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Dec 15, 1997.
702 So. 2d 607
1997 WL 764493
Webster.
Cited by 13 opinions  |  Published

[*608] Joseph Rogers, Appellant, pro se.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General; Charmaine M. Millsaps, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

WEBSTER, Judge.

The trial court denied appellant's motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, seeking postconviction relief, following a hearing. On appeal, appellant's sole claim is that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his request for the appointment of counsel. We agree and, accordingly, reverse.

By an amended motion seeking postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, appellant challenged his conviction and sentence for grand theft, claiming that trial counsel had been ineffective in several regards. Subsequently, appellant requested that counsel be appointed to represent him, citing the principal Florida cases dealing with appointment of counsel in collateral criminal proceedings. He represented that his motion seeking postconviction relief had been prepared by a prison law clerk; that he lacked the legal knowledge to present his claims; and that he did not know how to examine or cross-examine witnesses. A short time later, the trial court set appellant's motion for an evidentiary hearing, and denied his request for counsel. Prior to the hearing, appellant filed a second request for appointment of counsel. In it, he represented that all of the documents that had been filed on his behalf had been prepared by a prison law clerk; that he had only a ninthgrade education; that he had no training in the law; and that he lacked the skills necessary to participate in the scheduled hearing. This motion was also denied.

At the commencement of the evidentiary hearing, it became clear that appellant had no idea how to proceed. In fact, when he conceded as much, the trial court responded, "well, the law requires you to do this yourself." Appellant then attempted to proceed. However, his performance was consistent with what one would expect from a person having no legal training and a ninth-grade education. Among other things, the trial court repeatedly had to explain to appellant the rules regarding examination of witnesses, and to admonish him not to offer his own testimony when he was supposed to be questioning a witness. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court denied appellant's motion seeking postconviction relief. This appeal follows.

In Graham v. State, 372 So.2d 1363, 1365 (Fla.1979), the court said "that although there is no absolute right to counsel in postconviction relief proceedings, the Court before which the proceedings are pending must determine the need for counsel and resolve any doubts in favor of the appointment of counsel for the defendant." "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." Id. at 1365-66. The court reaffirmed Graham in Williams v. State, 472 So.2d 738 (Fla.1985).

In Williams, the court again noted that whether to appoint counsel in a collateral criminal proceeding is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Id. at 740. However, the trial court must base its decision upon consideration of the factors set out in Graham—i.e., whether the proceeding is adversarial in nature; whether the proceeding[*609] is complex; whether the proceeding will include an evidentiary hearing; and whether the proceeding will require substantial legal research. Id. The court then pointed out that "[t]he determination that an evidentiary hearing is necessary in itself implies that three of the four elements are involved" because "[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." Id. The court concluded that counsel should have been appointed for Williams based on the following:

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 druginduced 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.

Id.

We are unable to perceive any meaningful distinction between the facts in Williams and those revealed by the record in this case. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied appellant's request for the appointment of counsel. See also Witherspoon v. State, 634 So.2d 208 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (reversing denial of request for appointment of counsel to assist at evidentiary hearing on postconviction motion claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel).

The orders denying appellant's request for the appointment of counsel and his motion for postconviction relief are reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings. On remand, the trial court shall appoint counsel to assist appellant at a new evidentiary hearing.

REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.

ALLEN and DAVIS, JJ., concur.