Knowing And Intelligent Waiver

861 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count

• Newman v. State
  937 So. 2d 1290· Fla. 4th DCA· 2006-10-04
  The court held that a defendant's equivocal statement about not affording an attorney does not automatically vitiate a prior valid Miranda waiver or constitute an invocation of counsel.
• J.R.I. v. State
  898 So. 2d 1093· Fla. 1st DCA· 2005-03-24
  The appellate court reversed a juvenile's commitment to a facility after probation revocation because his initial waivers of counsel were not knowing and intelligent. This meant he could not have been sentenced to imprisonment for the original offense, and thus could not be commi
• In & for New Castle Cnty.
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2003-08-08
  The Court GRANTED in part and DENIED in part the Defendant's Motion to Suppress. Statements made during the first interview were admissible because the defendant was not in custody. However, statements made during the second and third interviews were suppressed due to violations
• Johnson v. State
  824 So. 2d 297· Fla. 1st DCA· 2002-08-22
• Berkuta v. State
  788 So. 2d 1081· Fla. 4th DCA· 2001-06-06
  John Berkuta was convicted by jury of a lewd, lascivious or indecent act on a child. On appeal, he challenged the closure of the courtroom during minor victims' testimony, arguing his mother's exclusion violated his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial. The court affirmed, hol
• Butler v. State
  767 So. 2d 534· Fla. 4th DCA· 2000-08-16
  Philip Butler, an experienced criminal defense attorney with 25 years of experience, was convicted of bribery and related offenses after representing himself at trial without a formal Faretta inquiry. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that while attorney-defendants must
• United States v. Dollar
  74 F. Supp. 275· M.D. Fla.· 2000-03-21
  The court held that both defendants knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived their right to counsel and invoked their right to self-representation.
• T.S.D. v. State
  742 So. 2d 536· Fla. 3d DCA· 1999-10-27
• Rondale Voncha Carter v. State
  697 So. 2d 529· Fla. 1st DCA· 1997-06-04
  Rondale Carter was convicted of first-degree murder in the shooting death of Phuc Cong Tran. On appeal, the court reversed because the trial court abused its discretion by excluding expert psychological testimony about Carter's mental capacity to understand his Miranda rights, de
• Williams v. State
  692 So. 2d 257· Fla. 1st DCA· 1997-04-23
• Ferguson v. State
  692 So. 2d 930· Fla. 5th DCA· 1997-03-27
• Schwartz v. State
  653 So. 2d 1060· Fla. 4th DCA· 1995-04-12
• Ruff v. State
  637 So. 2d 57· Fla. 5th DCA· 1994-05-13
  Curtis Ruff appealed his criminal sentence, challenging whether the trial court properly applied statutory requirements for determining suitability for adult sanctions under Florida law and whether the court properly imposed a departure sentence. The appellate court vacated the s
• Brown v. Burns
  996 F.2d 219· 9th Cir.· 1993-06-21
  The court held that the state court's finding that the offense occurred partly off-reservation was supported by the record, and the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to a jury trial.
• United States v. Dalman
  994 F.2d 537· 8th Cir.· 1993-06-04
  A guilty plea is valid if it represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among alternatives, and a defendant's claim of medication impairment or coercion is rejected if the record shows understanding and voluntary action.
• Hendricks v. Zenon
  993 F.2d 664· 9th Cir.· 1993-04-22
  The court held that the Oregon Court of Appeals violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel by denying his motion for substitution of counsel and forcing him to proceed pro se without a knowing and intelligent waiver.
• Jenkins v. Leonardo
  991 F.2d 1033· 2d Cir.· 1993-04-20
  The court held that even if a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated by the use of statements elicited by a state agent, the statements are admissible for impeachment purposes if voluntarily made and knowingly and intelligently waived.
• United States v. Lopez-Vasquez
  985 F.2d 1017· 9th Cir.· 1993-02-08
  The court held that a mass silent waiver of the right to appeal a deportation order is impermissible and does not overcome the presumption against waiver.
• United States v. Dent
  984 F.2d 1453· 7th Cir.· 1993-01-26
  The court held that grand jury testimony, even if trustworthy, cannot be admitted under the residual hearsay exception (Rule 804(b)(5)) if it is specifically covered by another exception (Rule 804(b)(1)) and fails to meet that exception's requirements.
• United States v. Rodrigo Chavez-Huerto
  972 F.2d 1087· 9th Cir.· 1992-08-12
  A waiver of the right to appeal a deportation order is not rendered unknowing or unintelligent by the immigration judge's failure to inform the alien of the potential felony consequences of future illegal reentry.
• United States v. Jacobo Graibe
  946 F.2d 1414· 9th Cir.· 1991-10-09
  The court held that the district court's failure to inform the defendant that he could not withdraw his guilty plea if the court refused to accept the government's sentencing recommendation constituted a violation of Rule 11(e)(2) that affected a substantial right and was not har
• Jones v. State
  587 So. 2d 1172· Fla. 4th DCA· 1991-10-09
• Hamilton v. Texas
  498 U.S. 908· U.S.· 1990-10-09
• Robinson v. United States
  897 F.2d 903· 7th Cir.· 1990-03-20
  The court held that a defendant's decision to make an unsworn statement to the jury during closing arguments, even if it contained incriminating admissions and contradicted his attorney's defense strategy, did not constitute a waiver of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel when h
• Robertson v. California
  493 U.S. 879· U.S.· 1989-10-02
• Atl. Leasing & Fin., Inc. v. IPM Tech., Inc.
  885 F.2d 188· 4th Cir.· 1989-09-15
  The court held that a confessed judgment entered against a guarantor was valid, as the guarantor knowingly and voluntarily waived its due process rights and defenses through the contract's provisions. The court also found the award of attorneys' fees to be permissible under Maryl
• United States v. James M. Foster, M.D.
  867 F.2d 838· 5th Cir.· 1989-02-28
  The court held that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his Sixth Amendment right to appointed counsel, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion.
• United States v. Auen
  864 F.2d 4· 2d Cir.· 1988-12-05
  The court held that the defendant implicitly waived his right to counsel and was competent to stand trial.
• Toste v. Lopes
  861 F.2d 782· 2d Cir.· 1988-11-17
  The court held that a defendant's low intelligence level does not automatically invalidate a waiver of Miranda rights if the waiver was knowing and intelligent.
• Singleton v. Thigpen
  856 F.2d 126· 11th Cir.· 1988-09-12
  The court held that the denial of an evidentiary hearing was proper because the petitioner failed to establish cause and prejudice to overcome a procedural bar on his claim of diminished capacity to waive Miranda rights.
• Renzi v. Warden, U.S. Penitentiary, Terre Haute, IND., & Attorney Gen., State of Conn.
  792 F.2d 311· 2d Cir.· 1986-06-09
  The court held that the petitioner's guilty plea to second-degree murder was valid, despite claims of inadequate advisement of rights and factual basis.
• Jones v. State
  459 So. 2d 1151· Fla. 1st DCA· 1984-11-28
  Susan Jones challenges her felony petit theft sentence imposed after a guilty plea, arguing that the trial court's failure to inform her of parole ineligibility vitiated her election to be sentenced under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701. The First District Court of Appea
• Ross v. Louie L. Wainwright
  738 F.2d 1217· 11th Cir.· 1984-08-13
  The court held that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to appeal the effectiveness of his counsel by acquiescing to his attorney's trial strategy and failing to object when directly questioned by the court.
• Atkins v. State
  452 So. 2d 529· Fla.· 1984-06-07
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed Atkins' conviction for first-degree murder and kidnapping but vacated his death sentence because the trial court improperly relied on a sexual battery aggravating circumstance that lacked independent corroboration. The court remanded for resente
• United States v. Bentley
  726 F.2d 1124· 6th Cir.· 1984-01-31
  The court would hold that the defendant made a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to counsel and that any error in admitting his statements was harmless.
• Smith v. State
  444 So. 2d 542· Fla. 1st DCA· 1984-01-25
  Smith was charged with attempted armed robbery and demanded discharge of his court-appointed public defender, requesting new counsel be appointed. When the trial court declined to appoint new counsel and conditioned continued representation on withdrawal of Smith's demand for spe
• Morgano v. State
  439 So. 2d 924· Fla. 2d DCA· 1983-10-07
  John Morgano appealed his burglary conviction after being tried without counsel despite objecting to self-representation. The court affirmed the finding that Morgano was solvent and thus not entitled to court-appointed counsel, but reversed the conviction because the trial court
• Shepard v. Warden H. Solem and Paul L. Douglas
  688 F.2d 65· 8th Cir.· 1982-09-13
  The court held that the federal district court did not err in resolving the habeas corpus claims on the state court record without an evidentiary hearing, and that the guilty plea was voluntary and counsel was effective.
• Melvee Tucker v. State
  417 So. 2d 1006· Fla. 3d DCA· 1982-06-22
  Melvee Tucker was convicted of first-degree murder in the 1974 killing of a convenience store employee and sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal, Tucker challenged his conviction on six grounds, including claims regarding venue, prosecutorial delay, grand jury composition, co
• United States v. Lane
  624 F.2d 1336· 5th Cir.· 1980-08-28
  The court held that the defendant's waiver of a mistrial was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent, and that the trial judge's actions did not constitute reversible error.
• Devold v. Blackburn
  574 F.2d 1361· 5th Cir.· 1978-06-16
  The court held that the petitioner's guilty plea was voluntary and intelligently entered, and that his counsel provided effective assistance.
• Covington v. State
  353 So. 2d 211· Fla. 3d DCA· 1977-12-27
  The court held that a guilty plea is invalid if the defendant was not properly advised of their right to court-appointed counsel upon showing indigency.
• Piercy v. Seymore G. Heyison
  565 F.2d 854· 3d Cir.· 1977-11-04
  The court held that the use of a cognovit note does not automatically preclude license suspension for nonpayment of a judgment, and the case should be remanded for a three-judge court.
• McNAMARA v. Riddle
  563 F.2d 125· 4th Cir.· 1977-10-13
  The court held that a state prisoner's habeas petitions were properly dismissed because he failed to demonstrate constitutional error regarding competency or the right to self-representation.
• Sammie Preston Irby v. State OF Mo.
  529 F.2d 1292· 8th Cir.· 1976-02-06
  The court held that the state made an adequate showing that the petitioner knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel for a prior conviction.
• Courtney v. United States
  518 F.2d 514· 4th Cir.· 1975-07-01
  A guilty plea is not rendered invalid by a mistaken belief that an illegally obtained confession is admissible, provided counsel's advice was competent and the plea was voluntary and intelligent.
• Johnson v. Ohio
  419 U.S. 924· U.S.· 1974-10-21
• Santana v. United States
  477 F.2d 721· 2d Cir.· 1973-04-20
  A voluntary and intelligent guilty plea, entered on advice of counsel, is not rendered invalid by subsequent judicial decisions that invalidate the statutory presumptions that may have influenced the plea.
• Jenkins v. United States
  466 F.2d 520· 8th Cir.· 1972-09-20
  The court held that a hearing is not required when the files and records conclusively show the prisoner is entitled to no relief.
• United States v. Monaco
  456 F.2d 254· 3d Cir.· 1972-02-29
  The court held that the trial court complied with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure when accepting the appellant's guilty plea.