JULIUS BERNARD WILLIAMS, 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.
Julius Bernard Williams sought habeas corpus relief after his court-appointed counsel withdrew from his appeal without adequate notice to him. The Florida Supreme Court found that Williams was not properly notified of the withdrawal until after the deadline to file assignments of error had passed, rendering his appellate remedy unavailable, and therefore granted him full appellate review via habeas corpus.
The court held that Williams was entitled to full appellate review by way of habeas corpus because orderly appellate remedy had been rendered unavailable to him due to untimely notice of his counsel's withdrawal. The court accepted the Commissioner's recommendation that the failure to provide proper notice effectively denied Williams his right to appellate review.
“Since petitioner was untimely advised under the circumstances set forth in Paragraphs 2 and 4 above, it is the opinion of the Commissioner that orderly appellate remedy has been rendered unavailable to him, and that he is entitled to full appellate review by way of habeas corpus”
The Commissioner's conclusion that failure to provide timely notice of counsel's withdrawal deprived Williams of his appellate remedy, justifying habeas corpus relief.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliams was convicted in Escambia County Circuit Court and appealed. His court-appointed counsel obtained permission from the District Court of Appea…
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 In Forma Pauperis cases and more on FLexlaw
Julius Bernard Williams petitioned this Court for writ of habeas corpus. Review of the State’s return thereto indicated there were issues of fact to be determined. Whereupon we appointed Honorable Woodrow Melvin, Circuit Judge of the First Judicial Circuit, Commissioner to take such testimony necessary to a determination of such issues and report the same to us with his findings and recommendations. See Williams v. Wainwright, 212 So.2d 6.
The report of the Commissioner with his findings and recommendations has been received. Salient parts of the report read as follows:
“Your Commissioner submits findings and recommendations, as follows:
“1. Petitioner was not advised by his Court-appointed counsel that he had been permitted by the District Court of Appeal, First District, to withdraw as counsel for petitioner in presenting petitioner’s Appeal from his conviction in the Court of Record of Escambia County, Florida, prior to the dismissal of said Appeal.
“2. Petitioner was advised of such fact by Honorable George R. Georgieff, Attorney for the Respondent, and by the Clerk of the said District Court of Appeal in that from each person the petitioner received a copy of State’s Motion to Dismiss said Appeal. See Petitioner’s Exhibit 3, and petitioner’s testimony transcript, page 19, as to receipt of copies of said Motion.
“3. The petitioner denies that he received a copy of the District Court Order allowing withdrawal of counsel, and the contrary does not affirmatively appear. See Petitioner’s Exhibits 2 and 5.
“4. When petitioner received copies of the State’s Motion to Dismiss (Petitioner’s Exhibit 3), and was by its contents advised of the entry of the Court’s Order allowing counsel to withdraw, the time allowed petitioner by such Order to file Assignments of Error had long since expired. Petitioner testified that upon receipt of a copy of the State’s Motion to Dismiss, he filed a Motion requesting additional time to file assignments of error, but that he received no reply from the Court, (Transcript pgs. 7 and 24). The contrary does not appear in the record.
“It will be noted that the State’s Motion to Dismiss was filed November 9, 1966, and Order of Dismissal was entered December 7, 1966.
“5. Since petitioner was untimely advised under the circumstances set forth in Paragraphs 2 and 4 above, it is the opinion of the Commissioner that orderly appellate remedy has been rendered unavailable to him, and that he is entitled to full appellate review by way of habeas corpus to be applied for in the District Court of Appeal, First District. See Hollingshead vs. Wainwright [Fla.], 194 So.2d 577.”
We accept and approve the report of the Commissioner and order that Petitioner Julius Bernard Williams be afforded opportunity of full appellate review by way of habeas corpus to be applied for in the District Court of Appeal, First District.
The Petitioner is authorized to proceed in forma pauperis. The District Court is directed to appoint an attorney to represent Petitioner in such proceedings. See Hollingshead v. Wainwright, Fla., 194 So.2d 577.
It is so ordered.
CALDWELL, C. J., and ROBERTS, THORNAL, ERVIN and ADAMS (Ret.), JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jackson v. State, 227 So. 2d 354 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)…unavailable by failure of the trial court to appoint an attorney to prosecute an appeal for the defendant, a delayed review by means of habeas corpus is available to avoid injustice and the denial of due process. In Williams v. Wainwright, Fla.1969, 217 So. 2d 317, the petitioner’s direct appeal to a district court of appeal was dismissed for failure to prosecute. The opinion indicated that petitioner’s court appointed attorney had not given petitioner timely notice of an order of the district court which all…
-
Williams v. State, 238 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)…PER CURIAM. We here consider a “Hollingshead” petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to an order of the Florida Supreme Court in Williams v. Wainwright, 217 So. 2d 317 (Fla.1969), wherein that Court found that Petitioner had been thwarted in his right of direct appeal from a judgment of conviction of robbery and breaking and entering. This Court has meticulously examined the record in this cause, including the tr…
Authorities Cited
- Cleveland Hollingshead v. Louie L. Wainwright, 194 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 1967)
- Henrich v. Brown, 212 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 1968)