Intelligent Waiver

38 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• United States v. Ganter
  436 F.2d 364· 7th Cir.· 1970-12-23 ·cited 54×
  The court held that knowledge of the victim's federal status is not an element of 18 U.S.C. § 111, and that the arrest and subsequent seizure of evidence were based on probable cause and exigent circumstances, and that the Miranda warnings were adequate.
• Hodge v. United States
  414 F.2d 1040· 9th Cir.· 1969-07-03 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the appellant intelligently waived his right to counsel by asserting his right to self-representation, and that the trial court did not err in its procedures.
• In the Interest of R. v. P.
  395 So. 2d 291· Fla. 5th DCA· 1981-03-18 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of arson but sufficient to support a finding of burglary.
• Horne v. United States
  264 F.2d 40· 5th Cir.· 1959-02-26 ·cited 40×
  The court held that a defendant's knowing acquiescence to proceeding with fewer than 12 jurors, even without a written waiver, is sufficient to uphold the conviction on collateral review.
• Quartz v. State
  258 So. 2d 283· Fla. 3d DCA· 1972-02-15 ·cited 34×
  A written waiver of jury trial, signed by the defendant and approved by the court and state, is sufficient to constitute an intelligent waiver, even without explicit judicial interrogation of the defendant. Additionally, a motion for a new trial may be denied if no grounds are pr
• McJORDAN v. Huff
  133 F.2d 408· D.C. Cir.· 1943-02-01 ·cited 30×
  Appellant was entitled to counsel at his preliminary hearing and arraignment, and his waiver of this right was not intelligent.
• Michener v. Johnston
  141 F.2d 171· 9th Cir.· 1944-02-28 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the determination of whether there was an intelligent waiver of the right to counsel depends on the particular facts and circumstances, and the lower court's conclusion of waiver was not sufficiently supported by its findings.
• Tejeda v. United States Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  346 F.2d 389· 9th Cir.· 1965-05-19 ·cited 22×
  The court held that if the petitioner made a bona fide effort to reenter and was denied reentry due to misadvice from the American Consul, respondents should be precluded from denying reentry.
• Lesley v. State OF Okla. & Ray H. Page
  407 F.2d 543· 10th Cir.· 1969-02-27 ·cited 18×
  A guilty plea induced by prosecutorial overreaching, especially with an unrepresented, youthful, and frightened defendant, is constitutionally infirm and involuntary.
• In the Interest of J.H.
  580 So. 2d 162· Fla. 4th DCA· 1991-02-13 ·cited 14×
  A juvenile defendant challenged whether she intelligently waived her right to counsel by signing a form consenting to representation by a certified law student without being informed of her right to have a supervising attorney personally present. The court held the form insuffici
• Cmty. Health Servs. OF Crawford Cnty., Inc. v. Califano
  698 F.2d 615· 3d Cir.· 1983-01-19 ·cited 14×
  The government cannot be estopped from seeking reimbursement for an overpayment when the recipient never had a substantive entitlement to the funds.
• Smith v. Zant
  855 F.2d 712· 11th Cir.· 1988-08-26 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the defendant did not intelligently waive his Miranda rights due to his mental limitations and the circumstances of the interrogation, and that the admission of his confession was not harmless error as to his conviction for malice murder and armed robbery.
• Smith v. State
  512 So. 2d 291· Fla. 1st DCA· 1987-09-09 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a trial court's failure to make a sufficient inquiry into whether a defendant knowingly and intelligently waived their right to counsel constitutes reversible error.
• Hatcher v. United States
  352 F.2d 364· D.C. Cir.· 1965-07-02 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the conviction, finding the evidence sufficient to support the jury's verdict despite questions about the defendant's mental state and the jury waiver process.
• Adkins v. Sanford
  120 F.2d 471· 5th Cir.· 1941-06-09 ·cited 10×
  The Sixth Amendment does not require appointment of counsel for a defendant who makes no request, admits guilt, pleads guilty knowingly, and only complains that a lawyer might have secured a lighter sentence.
• Kreiling v. Field
  431 F.2d 638· 9th Cir.· 1970-09-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the appellant's waiver of counsel was intelligent and that an evidentiary hearing was not required. The denial of the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is affirmed.
• United States v. Pruitt
  397 F.2d 502· 7th Cir.· 1968-06-27 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the district court's rejection of the defendant's motion for credit for pre-sentence jail time.
• Williams v. Huff
  146 F.2d 867· D.C. Cir.· 1945-01-22 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the evidence did not sustain a finding that the waiver of counsel was intelligently made, and the appellant should be discharged.
• Warwick Mason Wyatt v. United States
  591 F.2d 260· 4th Cir.· 1979-01-02 ·cited 7×
  The court held that a defendant's waiver of jury trial is presumed valid and does not require reconfirmation by the trial judge based on the judge's prior knowledge of facts related to the case, absent circumstances requiring disqualification.
• Schram v. Hoyt C. Cupp
  436 F.2d 692· 9th Cir.· 1970-11-25 ·cited 6×
  The dissenting judge believes the majority erred by not granting a hearing to assess the credibility of the petitioner's assertion of non-knowing waiver of counsel.
• State v. Levine
  237 So. 2d 193· Fla. 3d DCA· 1970-06-16 ·cited 6×
  The State of Florida appealed the dismissal of bribery and conspiracy charges against attorneys Levine and Englander. The court reversed the dismissal, holding that both defendants had voluntarily and intelligently waived immunity before testifying to prosecutors and the grand ju
• Sampson v. State
  466 So. 2d 1181· Fla. 1st DCA· 1985-04-02 ·cited 4×
  Gerald Sampson appeals his conviction on seven felony charges, arguing the trial court erred by allowing him to proceed pro se without adequately assessing whether he intelligently waived counsel, and by failing to renew the offer of counsel on the trial date. The court reversed
• United States ex rel. Albert Jefferson v. FAY
  364 F.2d 15· 2d Cir.· 1966-07-22 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the state court was justified in finding that the appellant intelligently waived his right to counsel, and the district court did not err in denying a habeas corpus hearing.
• McKENZIE v. State
  187 So. 2d 69· Fla. 2d DCA· 1966-06-01 ·cited 4×
  McKenzie appealed the denial of his Rule 1 motion challenging a guilty plea entered without counsel. The Florida appellate court held that his waiver of the right to counsel was invalid because the trial judge's explanation inadequately distinguished between the right to counsel
• Garland Leeds v. State
  187 So. 2d 77· Fla. 2d DCA· 1966-06-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a silent record is insufficient to establish a waiver of counsel, and a motion for post-conviction relief should not be denied without a hearing if it raises a genuine issue regarding the waiver, but the motion was defective for failing to allege insolvency at
• O'Keith v. Johnston
  146 F.2d 231· 9th Cir.· 1944-12-12 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the lower court's finding of intelligent waiver of counsel, supported by evidence, should not be disturbed on appeal.
• Hall v. State
  421 So. 2d 571· Fla. 3d DCA· 1982-10-05 ·cited 2×
  The appellate court reviewed the denial of motions to suppress statements and an order in limine concerning statements by a deceased victim's husband, following the appellant's nolo contendere plea to third-degree murder and burglary.
• United States v. Hollifield
  458 F.2d 1362· 9th Cir.· 1972-05-15 ·cited 2×
• Schram v. Hoyt C. Cupp
  425 F.2d 612· 9th Cir.· 1970-04-17 ·cited 2×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the trial court's finding that the appellant failed to meet the burden of proving an inadequate waiver of counsel.
• Gilroy v. State
  212 So. 2d 823· Fla. 2d DCA· 1968-07-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the appellant's arguments regarding the invalid waiver of his right to counsel and jury trial, and the improper charge of larceny, were not supported by the record.
• Carnley v. Cochran
  143 So. 2d 327· Fla.· 1962-07-13 ·cited 2×
  The Florida Supreme Court, following a reversal by the U.S. Supreme Court, ordered a new trial for the petitioners, ensuring their right to counsel unless intelligently waived, as mandated by the Fourteenth Amendment.
• Young v. Sanford
  147 F.2d 1007· 5th Cir.· 1945-03-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that alleged irregularities prior to trial must be raised at trial or on appeal, not in habeas corpus, and that the finding of intelligent waiver of counsel was supported by the record.
• T.F.V. v. State
  Fla. 5th DCA· 2026-04-02
  A trial court commits fundamental error by accepting a plea from a juvenile without first conducting an adequate inquiry to ensure that any waiver of the right to counsel is free and intelligent.
• Jackson v. Hopper
  547 F.2d 260· 5th Cir.· 1977-02-16
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence for the lower court to find that the defendant knowingly, intelligently, and expressly waived his right to a jury trial.
• Thompson v. Henderson
  442 F.2d 624· 5th Cir.· 1971-05-11
  The court held that the District Court did not err in finding that the petitioner intelligently waived his right to counsel when he pleaded guilty.
• MacKreth v. Williams
  145 F.2d 272· 5th Cir.· 1944-11-03
  The court held that the findings of the trial judge that the appellant intelligently waived his right to counsel were supported by substantial evidence.
• Powell v. Sanford
  136 F.2d 58· 5th Cir.· 1943-06-01
  The court held that the appellant intelligently waived his right to counsel and jury trial, and therefore was not unlawfully deprived of constitutional rights.