WILLIE E. SIMMONS, PETITIONER,
v.
LOUIE L. WAINWRIGHT, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS, STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Willie Simmons petitioned for habeas corpus challenging his forgery conviction, claiming denial of adequate counsel because the trial court refused to appoint an attorney outside the public defender's office. The Florida appellate court denied the petition, holding that while indigent defendants must receive qualified representation, they have no constitutional right to choose their counsel, and Simmons's dissatisfaction with the public defender's office did not constitute ineffective assistance.
An indigent defendant does not have a constitutional right to choose or select their counsel, and the trial court properly refused to appoint counsel outside the public defender's office. The number of visits or consultations between a public defender and defendant is not a proper criterion for determining whether adequate representation is being provided, and Simmons's decision to represent himself rather than accept qualified public defender representation cannot be charged as error against the court.
[1] An indigent defendant is not entitled to select their preferred attorney, but rather to qualified counsel.
[2] The number of visits or consultations between a public defender and a defendant is not a proper criterion for determining the adequacy of representation.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the representation by counsel is essential and that such representation must not be a farce”
Establishes the court's acknowledgment of the constitutional importance of adequate counsel while setting limits on the right to choose counsel
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSimmons was convicted of forgery after refusing to allow the public defender's office to represent him at trial. His primary complaint was that the pu…
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 Public Defender System cases and more on FLexlaw
This is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by the defendant Willie E. Simmons in his own proper person. *6The alleged basis for the writ is that his motion to vacate sentence and judgment was denied, March 20, 1969; that at his trial he had refused to let the public defender’s office represent him and the court had refused to appoint another attorney, outside of the public defender’s office, to represent him at his trial. He was convicted of forgery.
Boiled down, the defendant did not like the way the public defender’s office had ignored his requests for visits to him while in jail. There is no allegation of incompetence nor conflict of interest. He merely wanted another attorney.
We are in full accord with the decisions of the Federal courts to the ultimate effect that the representation by counsel is essential and that such representation must not be a farce; but, we are further of the strong opinion that these defendants, who don’t even deny guilt, but allege only some technical violation of an imagined constitutional right, are not entitled to the right of selection of probably the best and highest paid, experienced criminal trial lawyer. To meet the requirement that indigent defendants have qualified counsel represent them, this State, as has most states, created the office of public defender, and the person or persons filling such office must be legally qualified practicing attorneys. The number of visits or consultations between a member of the public defender’s office and a defendant is not a proper criteria for determining whether proper representation is being afforded. The trial court is fully aware of the obligations of attorneys and when it appears that a public defender or a member of his staff are failing to do their job for an indigent defendant, then it is proper and necessary for the court to appoint other counsel. Such is not the case here. The Petitioner was dissatisfied with the public defender and refused in open court to let the public defender represent him.
The fact that he represented himself rather than permit the public defender to do so, and was convicted, can be charged against the defendant only and not as error of the court or default of the public defender’s office.
Therefore, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied.
WIGGINTON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bacon v. State, 247 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)…Office because that office is in petitioner’s opinion “inadequately financed.” The trial court properly refused to have the state finance petitioner’s fishing expedition for further grounds for his petition. See Simmons v. Wainwright, Fla.App.1970, 237 So. 2d 5. Affirmed.…