DAMIAN GARCIA,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA,
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The appellate court denied a criminal defendant's motion to discharge his appointed counsel and proceed pro se on appeal. The court affirmed that the right to self-representation does not extend to appellate proceedings and struck the defendant's pro se filings.
No, a criminal defendant does not have a right to self-representation on appeal. The court declined to exercise its discretion to permit Garcia to proceed pro se and denied his motion.
[1] A criminal defendant does not have a right to self-representation on appeal.
[2] An appellate court has discretion to permit self-representation on appeal, but may decline to exercise that discretion.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A criminal defendant’s right to self-representation does not extend to appellate proceedings.”
Establishes the core legal principle regarding self-representation on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDamian Garcia appealed a contempt order for violating an injunction. His private counsel withdrew, and conflict counsel was appointed. Garcia then fil…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Indirect Criminal Contempt cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM. On Motion to Discharge Appellate Counsel
On December 10, 2018, appellant Damian Garcia, through private counsel, filed a notice of appeal challenging a trial court order entered that same day that found Garcia in indirect criminal contempt of court for violating the terms of a March2, 2018 final judgment of injunction. The injunction prohibited Garcia from attempting to communicate in any manner or to have any contact with a woman Garcia allegedly had threatened, stalked, and whose property he had vandalized.1 The trial court sentenced Garcia to ninety days in jail. While not entirely clear from the record before us, it appears Garcia posted a supersedeas bond and has not been incarcerated.
Prior to the filing of Garcia’s initial brief in this appeal, on March 11, 2019, Garcia’s private counsel filed in this Court a motion to withdraw citing irreconcilable differences. We granted private counsel’s motion to withdraw on April2, 2019. Shortly thereafter, on April 15, 2019, Regional Conflict Counsel filed a notice of appearance on behalf of Garcia. On May 24, 2019, Garcia filed with this Court the instant motion to discharge Regional Conflict Counsel. Accompanying
the motion was Garcia’s pro se proposed initial brief, and included in the motion was a request that we deem this proposed initial brief as being timely filed.2
A criminal defendant’s right to self-representation does not extend to appellate proceedings. Robinson v. State, 766 So. 2d 471, 472 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). While an appellate court has discretion to permit self-representation, Grant v. State, 780 So. 2d 131, 133 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), we decline to exercise such discretion in in this case. See Martinez v. Court of Appeal of Cal., 528 U.S. 152, 163 (2000); Davis v. State, 789 So. 2d 978, 981 (Fla. 2001).
We therefore deny Garcia’s May 24, 2019 motion seeking to discharge his counsel and requesting that we deem his pro se initial brief timely filed. We strike Garcia’s pro se initial brief, and also strike Garcia’s May 20, 2019 and May 31, 2019 motions. See Logan v. State, 846 So. 2d 472, 474-76 (Fla. 2003). We direct the currently assigned Regional Conflict Counsel representing Garcia in this appeal to file an initial brief within thirty days and otherwise to proceed with the appeal in accordance with the applicable rules of appellate procedure.
Motion to discharge appellate counsel denied; pro se filings stricken.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Logan v. State, 846 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 2003)
- Martinez v. Court of Appeal of Cal., 528 U.S. 152 (U.S. 2000)
- Davis v. State, 789 So. 2d 978 (Fla. 2001)
- Grant v. State, 780 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Robinson v. State, 766 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)