CLINTON WILLIAM BAKER, PETITIONER,
v.
LOUIE L. WAINWRIGHT, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS, RESPONDENT
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.
Baker sought habeas corpus relief claiming deprivation of his constitutional right to counsel on appeal after his public defender terminated representation, concluding no legitimate basis for appeal existed. The Florida Supreme Court held that the constitutional right to counsel on appeal does not require the same procedural safeguards (such as record waiver) as apply at trial.
The court held that basic distinctions must be made between the trial process and appellate process regarding the right to counsel. A habeas corpus petition asserting deprivation of appellate counsel fails without allegations of fact rebutting counsel's conclusion that no grounds for appeal existed or indicating impropriety in counsel's discharge.
“Petitioner's contention, essentially, is that there exists the same constitutional necessity for record waiver of counsel on appeal as in the trial process. We find, however, that basic distinctions must be made, in accordance with the opinions of this Court in Bashlor v. Wainwright, Fla.1966, 189 So. 2d 800.”
Establishes the court's rejection of petitioner's core argument and the principle that appellate counsel procedures differ from trial counsel procedures.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBaker was convicted of robbery and sentenced. Following sentencing, his public defender terminated representation, concluding there were no legitimate…
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 Collateral Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
The petitioner in this habeas corpus proceeding asserts a deprivation of the constitutional right to counsel on appeal from his conviction of robbery because, following imposition of sentence, representation by the public defender was terminated when such counsel concluded there was no legitimate basis for appeal. Respondent takes the position that the lack of allegation or record showing of a request for other counsel on appeal forecloses this dispute following affirmance of the conviction in the appeal prosecuted by petitioner on his own behalf. Damron and Baker v. State, Fla.App., 1966, 182 So.2d 313. Petitioner’s motion for collateral relief under Rule 1, F.R.C.P., F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix, on the grounds asserted in the petition here, has been denied. Baker v. State, Fla.App., 191 So.2d 284.
Petitioner’s contention, essentially, is that there exists the same constitutional necessity for record waiver of counsel on appeal as in the trial process. We find, however, that basic distinctions must be made, in accordance with the opinions of this Court in Bashlor v. Wainwright, Fla.1966, 189 So.2d 800. Neither the petition here nor the motion filed in the trial court sustains a claim for collateral relief because of the absence of any allegation of fact rebutting the conceded conclusion of counsel that there *291existed no grounds for appeal, or indicating impropriety in his discharge.1
Writ discharged.
O’CONNELL, CALDWELL and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
THORNAL, C. J., dissents with Opinion.
(dissenting).
I think this man was entitled to a hearing to ascertain whether he sought counsel for the appeal or whether he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel at the direct appellate level.
THORNAL, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
I think this man was entitled to a hearing to ascertain whether he sought counsel for the appeal or whether he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel at the direct appellate level.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Barton, 194 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 1967)
- Carr v. State, 180 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Smith v. State, 192 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)
- Hobbs v. The Fla. Indus. Comm'n, 189 So. 2d 800 (Fla. 1966)
- Baker v. State, 191 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)
- Langlois v. State, 191 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Damron v. State, 182 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)