DAVID EMANUEL RAHMING, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court addressed whether an appointed counsel's failure to file a notice of appeal on behalf of a defendant, despite the defendant's two written requests, violated the defendant's right to appeal. The Court held that appointed counsel must appeal a case regardless of its merit and reversed the denial of the habeas corpus petition.
Appointed counsel is required to appeal a case whether or not it is meritorious, and a defendant who makes a prima facie showing of frustrated appeal through state action is entitled to delayed appellate review. The District Court of Appeal erred in denying the habeas corpus petition without requiring the State to respond.
[1] Appointed counsel is required to appeal a case regardless of whether the appeal is meritorious.
[2] A prima facie showing of a frustrated appeal through state action warrants a habeas corpus petition for delayed appellate review.
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“appointed counsel is required to appeal a case whether or not it is meritorious in his view”
Establishes the core holding that appointed counsel has an affirmative duty to appeal regardless of case merit
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDavid Emanuel Rahming was convicted in September 1971 of conspiracy to commit a felony and robbery in Palm Beach County. He was represented by appoint…
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 Delayed Appellate Review cases and more on FLexlaw
On this petition for writ of certiorari, we have for review an order of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, which conflicts with the decision of this Court in State v. Wooden, 246 So.2d 75S (Fla.1971). We have jurisdiction over the cause pursuant to Fla.Const. Article V, § 3(b)(3), F.S.A.
By petition for writ of habeas corpus filed in the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, petitioner sought delayed appellate review of his conviction, alleging denial of his right to appeal by state action. Essentially, petitioner asserted that he was convicted in the Criminal Court of Record of Palm Beach County of conspiracy to commit a felony and of robbery; judgment and sentence' were imposed on September 24, 1971. He asserts that at the time of trial and for appeal purposes he was represented by appointed counsel. No motion for new trial was filed by appointed counsel, nor did counsel file notice of appeal in the district court. However, prior to his conviction, petitioner twice requested his counsel to appeal the decision of the trial court. The two letters requesting such action are made a part of the record below.
Finally, on November 4, 1971, petitioner filed his own notice of appeal in the district court; inasmuch as this appeal was untimely filed it was dismissed.
When petitioner subsequently filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus in the district court, alleging the matters above set forth, the petition was denied in a signed order. Petitioner now seeks conflict certiorari here. We find conflict and reverse.
In State v. Wooden, supra, this Court held that in light of Anders v. Cali*475fornia, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and Baggett v. Wainwright, 229 So.2d 239 (Fla.1969), appointed counsel is required to appeal a case whether or not it is meritorious in his view. Since it appears from the petition and exhibits filed below that petitioner has made a prima facie showing of frustrated appeal through state action, we hold that the district court erred in denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus without requiring a return by the State. Moreover, if, on the State’s return, petitioner’s recital of facts proves to be accurate, then petitioner will be entitled to delayed appellate review by the district court.
Accordingly, the order of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, is quashed and the cause remanded with directions that the district court require the State to respond and for such further action as may be required.
It is so ordered.
CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN and DEKLE, JJ, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jenkins v. Louie L. Wainwright, 322 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 1975)…appeal, not only from the trial court’s decision but also from the District Court’s decision on the petition for habeas corpus filed therein. Because of this failure, the merits of the issue were never presented on appeal. See Rahming v. Wainwright, 276 So. 2d 474 (Fla.1973); State v. Wooden, 246 So. 2d 755 (Fla.1971); Hollingshead v. Wainwright, supra. Absent this clear lack of proper representation by counsel, this Court would not have the authority to consider the merits of this petition. We could remand t…
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Baggett v. Louie L. Wainwright, 229 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 1969)