ZACKERY JACK RICHARDS, 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.
This case addresses whether a defendant who intelligently rejects legal representation, despite being warned of their inability to represent themselves, is entitled to appointed counsel. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the defendant's knowing waiver of counsel was valid.
No, the appellant was not denied his right to counsel. His decision to reject representation was intelligently and knowingly made, and therefore valid.
“It may not have been smart for Richards to reject counsel but his decision was intelligently (i. e. knowingly) made within the legal meaning of that term.”
This quote establishes the court's reasoning that the defendant's waiver of counsel was legally valid because it was made knowingly.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant, Zackery Jack Richards, was convicted of breaking and entering, destruction of property, and possession of burglary tools. He handled hi…
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 Knowing And Intelligent Waiver Of Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant was convicted of breaking and entering, destruction of property and possession of burglary tools after a trial at which he handled his own defense. He complains that counsel was not appointed to defend him after his rejection, for no stated cause, of representation by the public defender. This case differs from Donald v. State, 166 So.2d 4S3 (Fla.App.1964), where the public defender withdrew and no replacement was appointed. It differs from King v. State, 157 So.2d 440 (Fla.App.1963), where the defendant’s rights were not communicated to him. It may not have been smart for Richards to reject counsel but his decision was intelligently (i. e. knowingly) made within the legal meaning of that term. He was advised of his rights. He was offered the services of the public defender or, if he could show cause, other counsel. He was told by the trial judge that he was not equipped to represent himself but he elected to do so anyway. There *32is no error. Nor is error shown in the other questions raised.
Affirmed.
ALLEN, Acting C. J., and PIERCE, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Love v. State, 270 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)…’s inquiry was not of such a nature as to clearly reflect that defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel. King v. State, 157 So. 2d 440 (Fla.App.1963); Donald v. State, [*409] 166 So. 2d 453 (Fla.App.1964); Richards v. State, 214 So. 2d 31 (Fla.App.1968).1 The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court with directions to afford the appellant a new trial. REED, C. J., MAGER, J., and CARLTON, CHARLES T., Associate Judge, concur. . As the court observed in Donald v…1 / 2
-
Salesky v. State, 256 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972)…the Court, the briefs and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court hereby appealed is affirmed. See Richards v. State (Fla.App.1968), 214 So. 2d 31; Wilder v. State (Fla.App.1963), 156 So. 2d 395. SPECTOR, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K. and RAWLS, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- King v. State, 157 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)