ASA COOK, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
Asa Cook appealed his guilty plea conviction, claiming he lacked legal counsel to advise him of his rights. The court affirmed the conviction, finding that Cook had executed a written waiver of counsel after being fully advised of his right to representation and the availability of a public defender.
The conviction was affirmed because Cook validly waived his right to counsel. The trial court properly advised Cook of his rights and obtained his signed waiver, and it is not the trial court's function to force counsel upon a defendant against his wishes.
“It is not the function of trial courts to force counsel upon any defendant, be he indigent or not; in fact, such course of action would in itself constitute an infringement upon an accused's constitutional rights.”
Establishes the court's holding that the trial court properly respected Cook's waiver of counsel and did not err by allowing him to proceed without an attorney.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAsa Cook entered a guilty plea on October 22, 1963, in Madison County Circuit Court. The trial court personally inquired into Cook's intelligence and …
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 Motion To Set Aside Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
Movant Asa Cook in this Criminal Rule No. 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix, proceeding is seeking to set aside a sentence and judgment of conviction resulting from his plea of guilty entered on the 22nd day of October, A.D. 1963 in the Circuit Court in and for Madison County, Florida. In his motion, Cook alleges that he was sentenced without “ * * * legal aid of counsel to advice [sic] the appellant of his rights in said court”. The trial court in denying the defendant’s motion found in its order:
“ * * * the Court having personally presided at this trial and at the hearing, and the Court having personally inquired into the Defendant as to his intelligence and his ability to understand the proceedings, and the Court having fully advised the Defendant of his right to have counsel to represent him at all stages of the proceedings, the Court having advised the Defendant of all of his constitutional rights, the Defendant did intelligently and understandingly waive right to counsel in that he signed.a written Waiver, as the'records will show, and he stated that he understood that he had the right to have counsel to represent him, that if he did not have any funds, the public defender *794would defend him, all of which will be shown by the records.”
The record reflects that Asa Cook executed the following instrument:
“I, Asa Cook, the Defendant in the above entitled cause do hereby certify that I am 47 years of age, that I understand the charges pending against me and that the charge has been fully explained to me by the Court and the State Attorney. I further certify that I fully understand that I have the right to have an Attorney to represent me in these proceedings and I further understand that if I do not have any funds or means whereby.I can employ an Attorney to represent me in this matter that the Public Defender of the Third Judicial Circuit of Florida will represent me in this matter. I further certify that having been fully advised of my rights, I do hereby WAIVE the right to have an Attorney to represent me in this matter and it is my desire to enter a Plea of Guilty to the Charge pending against me. I certify that this is signed by me in Open Court.”
In his attack upon the proceedings in this court, Cook nowhere mentions the waiver or any of the proceedings pertaining to same and does not question that part of the trial record which conclusively shows that he waived counsel. He simply alleges that he did not have counsel and that the presence of counsel would have enabled him to have pleaded intelligently. It is not the function of trial courts to force counsel upon any defendant,1 be he indigent or not; in fact, such course of action would in itself constitute an infringement upon an accused’s constitutional rights.
The order of the trial court is affirmed.
STURGIS, C. J., and WIGGINTON, and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Goode v. State, 365 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 1978)…the right of self-representation. Florida has historically recognized the right of a defendant in a criminal case to represent himself. See Deeb v. State, 131 Fla. 362, 179 So. 894 (1937); State v. Capetta, 216 So. 2d 749 (Fla.1968); Cook v. State, 167 So. 2d 793 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964). The record in this case adequately shows that the defendant Goode knowingly waived his right to counsel. The court fully informed the accused of the perils of self-representation. In Faretta v. California, the U. S. Supreme Cou…
-
Michael v. Costello, 413 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…365 So. 2d 381, 383 (Fla.1979), noted that Florida has historically recognized the right of a criminal defendant to represent himself. State v. Cappetta, 216 So. 2d 749 (Fla.1968); Deeb v. State, 131 Fla. 362, 179 So. 894 (Fla.1937); Cook v. State, 167 So. 2d 793 (Fla. 1 DCA 1964). As stated in Faretta, supra, at 835, 95 S.Ct. at 2541, the duty of the trial court upon receiving a timely motion to proceed pro se is first, to make the defendant aware of the benefits he must relinquish, and the dangers and disa…
-
Lyons v. State, 437 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…mely, and that the denial of his request, without any inquiry to determine his ability to do so, violated his rights under the federal and state constitutions. Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975); Cook v. State, 167 So. 2d 793 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964); Cappetta v. State, 204 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 4th [*712] DCA 1967), rev’d. on other grounds, 216 So. 2d 749 (Fla.1968). He contends that there is no credible distinction between his case and Kimble v. State, 429 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. 3d…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Swarthout v. State, 165 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)