STATE OF FLORIDA EX REL. JESSE LEE TAYLOR, PETITIONER,
v.
WARDEN OF ORANGE COUNTY PRISON FARM, RESPONDENT

Fla. | 1967-01-11
No. 35740
THORNAL, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW and CALDWELL, J., concur., ERVIN, J., dissents with Opinion.
193 So. 2d 606 Florida Supreme Court (1967) Negative Treatment
Cited by 6 cases
Topics
Municipal Ordinance Violation Gideon V. Wainwright Indigent Defendants Waiver Of Right To Counsel

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Municipal Ordinance Violation cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

*607PER CURIAM.

This cause is before us on petition for ■writ of habeas corpus seeking release of petitioner, now serving mandatory consecutive sentences of ninety (90) days each on' two counts and two additional ninety (90) day sentences in lieu of payment of $500 fines on each count. These sentences were imposed by the Municipal Court of the City of Melbourne for violations of municipal ordinances.

We issued the writ and, having considered the return of the Attorney General and briefs of the parties, find petitioner’s contentions to be without merit.

Writ of habeas corpus is discharged. It is so ordered.

THORNAL, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW and CALDWELL, J., concur.

ERVIN, J., dissents with Opinion.

ERVIN, Justice

(dissenting).

Petitioner seeks writ of habeas corpus for release from confinement which he is serving because of convictions of violations of municipal ordinances in the Municipal Court of the City of Melbourne, Florida. Petitioner was sentenced to mandatory consecutive sentences of ninety (90) days each on two counts, required to pay a fine of $500.00 on each count, and in lieu of payment of fines was required to serve two additional 90-day sentences. As a result, he was sentenced to a total of 360 days.

Petitioner is an indigent and he pleaded guilty to violations of the municipal ordinances. He had no counsel of his own and the Municipal Court did not provide him with one or advise him of his right to counsel, but nevertheless accepted his guilty plea.

I think the time has come when the principles announced in Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799, should be applied in cases of the seriousness of this case, despite our prior holdings in Fish v. State, Fla., 159 So.2d 866, and Watkins v. Morris, Fla., 179 So.2d 348. When in any court in this state, whether state, county or municipal, a criminal case arises and the penalty prescribed in the event of conviction authorizes a sentence of confinement of 30 days or more, either initially or upon failure to pay a monetary fine, counsel should be provided an indigent defendant to counsel and assist him in his defense pursuant to the principles and rules announced in Gideon v. Wainwright, supra.

Failure to do so should invalidate the conviction in the absence of a clear waiver of the right to counsel. I deem it appropriate at this time to draw a line between those criminal cases of sufficient gravity requiring and those not requiring counsel to represent indigent defendants. I believe the line should be drawn on the basis of the extent of the penalty prescribed as outlined above. The rule should apply in this case and in all future cases.

Dissent
ERVIN, Justice

ERVIN, Justice

(dissenting).

Petitioner seeks writ of habeas corpus for release from confinement which he is serving because of convictions of violations of municipal ordinances in the Municipal Court of the City of Melbourne, Florida. Petitioner was sentenced to mandatory consecutive sentences of ninety (90) days each on two counts, required to pay a fine of $500.00 on each count, and in lieu of payment of fines was required to serve two additional 90-day sentences. As a result, he was sentenced to a total of 360 days.

Petitioner is an indigent and he pleaded guilty to violations of the municipal ordinances. He had no counsel of his own and the Municipal Court did not provide him with one or advise him of his right to counsel, but nevertheless accepted his guilty plea.

I think the time has come when the principles announced in Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799, should be applied in cases of the seriousness of this case, despite our prior holdings in Fish v. State, Fla., 159 So. 2d 866, and Watkins v. Morris, Fla., 179 So. 2d 348. When in any court in this state, whether state, county or municipal, a criminal case arises and the penalty prescribed in the event of conviction authorizes a sentence of confinement of 30 days or more, either initially or upon failure to pay a monetary fine, counsel should be provided an indigent defendant to counsel and assist him in his defense pursuant to the principles and rules announced in Gideon v. Wainwright, supra.

Failure to do so should invalidate the conviction in the absence of a clear waiver of the right to counsel. I deem it appropriate at this time to draw a line between those criminal cases of sufficient gravity requiring and those not requiring counsel to represent indigent defendants. I believe the line should be drawn on the basis of the extent of the penalty prescribed as outlined above. The rule should apply in this case and in all future cases.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • State of Fla. ex rel. Jon Richard Argersinger v. Hamlin, 236 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 1970)
    …ustice. We have taken original jurisdiction of this habeas corpus proceeding to reexamine our previous decisions in Fish v. State, Fla.1964, 159 So. 2d 866, Watkins v. Morris, Fla. 1965, 179 So. 2d 348, and State ex rel. Taylor v. Warden, Fla.1967, 193 So. 2d 606, holding that an indigent defendant is not entitled to court-appointed counsel when accused only of a misdemeanor. It is noteworthy that, since our decision in Fish, the United States Supreme Court has denied certiorari in three cases involving a de…
  • State of Fla. ex rel. Albert Johnson v. Sal Vizzini, 227 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 1969)
    …harged. DREW, Acting C. J., CARLTON, J., and SPECTOR, District Judge, concur. ADKINS, J., dissents in part with opinion. . See Rutledge v. City of Miami, 267 F. Supp. 885 (D.C.S.D.Fla.1967); State ex rel. Taylor v. Warden of Orange County Prison, 193 So. 2d 606 (Fla.1967). . Art. I, § 16, Chapter 29539, Acts of 1953: “Section 16. The City shall have the power to establish a municipal Court and the City Council in the City of South Miami shall appoint a judge thereof. Said Municipal Court shall impose pena…
  • Efrain Rivera Colon v. E. A. "Doug" Hendry, 408 F.2d 864 (5th Cir. 1969)
    …, 5 Cir., 1965, 353 F. 2d 106. The Florida Supreme Court does not so construe the Sixth Amendment. Fish v. State, 159 So. 2d 866 (Fla.S.Ct., 1964) ; Watkins v. Morris, 179 So. 2d 348 (Fla.S.Ct., 1964) ; Taylor v. Warden of Orange County Prison Farm, 193 So. 2d 606 (Fla.S.Ct., 1967). The Sheriff’s position here, and by indirection that of the state, is that the Justice of the Peace was unable to ap [*866] point counsel in his court. Moreover, that court was unable to provide a jury trial, and normally charges…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw