Knowing And Intelligent Waiver

865 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 197 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• United States v. Frazier
  476 F.2d 891· D.C. Cir.· 1973-01-26 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the government sustained its burden of proving a knowing waiver of the right to legal assistance, affirming the conviction.
• Estrada v. United States
  457 F.2d 255· 7th Cir.· 1972-03-20 ·cited 20×
  The court held that while personal interrogation of a defendant by the trial judge is preferred for jury waivers, it is not constitutionally compelled by Rule 23(a) or the Sixth Amendment.
• United States v. Johnson
  455 F.2d 311· 5th Cir.· 1972-02-03 ·cited 20×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict and that the defendants' rights were not violated by the trial court's procedures or instructions.
• Shawan v. COX
  350 F.2d 909· 10th Cir.· 1965-09-16 ·cited 20×·via Intelligent And Understanding Waiver
  The court held that the appellant did not intelligently and understandingly waive his constitutional right to counsel, as the record did not show he was adequately informed of the charges, potential penalties, or his rights.
• Phillips v. State
  164 So. 2d 858· Fla. 2d DCA· 1964-05-29 ·cited 20×·via Intelligent And Understanding Waiver
  Phillips appeals the denial of his post-conviction motion alleging he was denied his constitutional right to counsel when he pleaded guilty without representation and without being advised of his right to court-appointed counsel. The court reversed the denial and remanded for a p
• Smith v. State
  956 So. 2d 1288· Fla. 4th DCA· 2007-06-06 ·cited 19×·via Knowing And Intelligent Waiver Of Counsel
  Terrell Smith was convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to sell after representing himself at trial. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed his conviction because the trial court's Faretta inquiry was inadequate to establish that Smith knowingly and intelligently w
• P.L.S. v. State
  745 So. 2d 555· Fla. 4th DCA· 1999-12-08 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the trial court failed to conduct a thorough inquiry into the juvenile's comprehension of his right to counsel and his capacity to waive it, as required by the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure.
• United States v. Jones
  977 F.2d 105· 4th Cir.· 1992-09-24 ·cited 19×
  The court held that federal sentencing proceedings are not appropriate forums for reviewing the constitutionality of a defendant's prior state convictions.
• Marshall v. Dugger
  925 F.2d 374· 11th Cir.· 1991-03-01 ·cited 19×
  A defendant waives the Sixth Amendment right to counsel by unreasonably dismissing qualified, court-appointed counsel without good cause.
• United States v. Scott
  909 F.2d 488· 11th Cir.· 1990-08-21 ·cited 19×·via Knowing And Intelligent Waiver Of Counsel
  The court held that the trial judge erred by forcing the defendant to choose between his right to counsel and his right to testify, as the record did not establish that the defendant intended to commit perjury.
• United States v. Allen
  895 F.2d 1577· 10th Cir.· 1990-02-06 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the district court's failure to conduct a knowing and intelligent waiver inquiry before allowing the defendant to proceed pro se violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, and this error can never be treated as harmless.
• Adams v. Midge Carroll
  875 F.2d 1441· 9th Cir.· 1989-05-30 ·cited 19×·via Knowing And Intelligent Waiver Of Counsel
  A criminal defendant's request to proceed pro se is not rendered equivocal by being conditioned on the refusal to appoint a specific attorney the defendant distrusts.
• Walls v. State
  195 So. 2d 853· Fla.· 1967-03-01 ·cited 19×·via Knowing And Intelligent Waiver Of Counsel
  The Florida Supreme Court addressed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, identifying factual disputes regarding the petitioner's indigency, representation by counsel, and waiver of counsel at his 1961 trial. The court appointed a circuit judge as a commissioner to take testimo
• Norris v. State
  659 So. 2d 1352· Fla. 5th DCA· 1995-09-08 ·cited 18×
  Keith Norris, a juvenile waived to adult court, appealed his conviction for battery on a law enforcement officer and escape from a juvenile facility. The appellate court affirmed his sentencing as an adult but reversed and remanded his sentence because the trial court improperly
• Matrion Croskey v. State
  601 So. 2d 1326· Fla. 2d DCA· 1992-07-10 ·cited 18×
  A juvenile's negotiated plea agreement does not waive the statutory requirement for the trial court to make written findings regarding suitability for adult sanctions, unless the waiver is intelligent and knowing.
• United States v. Wessells
  936 F.2d 165· 4th Cir.· 1991-06-11 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the defendant's waiver of his right to appeal was not knowing and intelligent, and that the district court did not err in grouping offenses for sentencing purposes.
• Hayes v. State
  566 So. 2d 340· Fla. 2d DCA· 1990-08-31 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial court erred by failing to sufficiently inquire whether the appellant's waiver of counsel was knowing and intelligent, entitling him to a new trial.
• United States v. Erwin Darrell Newman
  912 F.2d 1119· 9th Cir.· 1990-08-30 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the defendant bears the burden of proving the constitutional invalidity of a prior conviction used in calculating his criminal history score, and that the defendant failed to meet this burden based on the state court transcript.
• United States v. Comosona
  848 F.2d 1110· 10th Cir.· 1988-06-09 ·cited 18×
  The court held that statements made by a defendant after invoking the right to counsel are admissible if the defendant initiates further communication and knowingly and intelligently waives that right, and that allegations of prejudice from preindictment and prearraignment delay
• United States v. McFARLAND
  839 F.2d 1239· 7th Cir.· 1988-02-10 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
• United States v. Gordon
  829 F.2d 119· D.C. Cir.· 1987-09-18 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a defendant's waiver of the right to be present at jury selection can be knowing and intelligent even if it occurs through counsel and not in open court, and that the advice of counsel need not meet the highest standards.
• United States v. Foluso Akinseye
  802 F.2d 740· 4th Cir.· 1986-10-02 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the defendants' entrapment defense failed because the jury found them predisposed to commit the crime, and that the pretrial waiver of joint representation was valid despite the court not conducting a further inquiry when one defendant testified.
• G.L.D. v. State
  442 So. 2d 401· Fla. 2d DCA· 1983-12-16 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a juvenile's waiver of counsel, made solely to avoid losing personal property, was not knowing and intelligent, and that the juvenile should have been informed of his Fifth Amendment rights before testifying.
• Tennell v. State
  348 So. 2d 937· Fla. 2d DCA· 1977-08-10 ·cited 18×·via Intelligent Waiver Of Rights
  Appellant, a 14-year-old juvenile with below-average intelligence and first-grade reading ability, challenges the admissibility of his confession and an order transferring him to adult criminal court. The court reversed because the state failed to meet its heavy burden of establi
• Jones v. State
  346 So. 2d 639· Fla. 2d DCA· 1977-06-03 ·cited 18×
  Carl Lee Jones was convicted of aggravated battery, but his conviction is reversed because the trial court improperly admitted inculpatory statements he made to police after he had invoked his right to remain silent and request an attorney, violating Miranda protections.
• Williams v. Lou V. Brewer
  509 F.2d 227· 8th Cir.· 1974-12-31 ·cited 18×
  The dissenting judge holds that the defendant voluntarily and intelligently waived his right to counsel and right to remain silent, and his statements were not involuntary.
• United States v. Crook
  502 F.2d 1378· 3d Cir.· 1974-08-02 ·cited 18×
  The dissenting judge believes the district court's judgment should be affirmed because the majority opinion incorrectly characterized the district court's reasoning and overrules prior precedent.
• Phillips v. State
  284 So. 2d 485· Fla. 3d DCA· 1973-08-28 ·cited 18×·via Knowing And Intelligent Waiver Of Counsel
  James Phillips was convicted of carrying a concealed firearm after a jury trial. He appealed arguing the pistol was seized illegally and his incriminating statements were obtained in violation of Miranda rights. The court affirmed the conviction, finding the search lawful under T
• Freeman v. Page
  443 F.2d 493· 10th Cir.· 1971-05-27 ·cited 18×·via Knowing And Intelligent Guilty Plea
  The court held that the appellant's guilty pleas were valid under pre-Boykin standards, and the Boykin decision's procedural rule does not apply retroactively.
• United States v. McNEIL
  433 F.2d 1109· D.C. Cir.· 1969-10-31 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in allowing testimony of the arresting officer regarding the appellant's oral statements, as they were voluntarily and intelligently made after proper Miranda warnings.
• Lesley v. State OF Okla. & Ray H. Page
  407 F.2d 543· 10th Cir.· 1969-02-27 ·cited 18×·via Intelligent Waiver
  A guilty plea induced by prosecutorial overreaching, especially with an unrepresented, youthful, and frightened defendant, is constitutionally infirm and involuntary.
• Kennedy v. United States
  249 F.2d 257· 5th Cir.· 1957-11-06 ·cited 18×
  A district court must hold a hearing on a motion to vacate a sentence under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 if the motion asserts a guilty plea was entered without the prisoner's understanding and the record does not conclusively refute this contention.
• Brown v. State
  45 So. 3d 110· Fla. 1st DCA· 2010-09-23 ·cited 17×
  Abraham Brown appeals his convictions after the trial court denied his unequivocal request to withdraw his self-representation and have counsel appointed. The court held that Brown clearly changed his mind about self-representation when he learned co-counsel would not be appointe
• D.C.W. v. State
  775 So. 2d 363· Fla. 2d DCA· 2000-11-03 ·cited 17×
  A juvenile appealed his adjudication of delinquency for battery on a detention facility staff member, challenging whether he validly waived his right to counsel. The court reversed because the trial court's inquiry into the waiver was inadequate under Florida Juvenile Procedure R
• United States v. Caldwell
  954 F.2d 496· 8th Cir.· 1992-01-16 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the defendant's Fifth Amendment rights were violated due to inadequate Miranda warnings and that the issue was preserved for appeal despite the lack of a renewed objection at trial.
• United States v. Willie
  941 F.2d 1384· 10th Cir.· 1991-08-12 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the district court erred in excluding exhibits offered by the defendant to support his subjective belief that he was not subject to tax laws, and this error was not harmless.
• Chestnut v. State
  578 So. 2d 27· Fla. 5th DCA· 1991-04-11 ·cited 17×
  The court held that a defendant's waiver of counsel at resentencing is invalid if the trial court fails to ensure the waiver is knowing and intelligent, and fails to inform the defendant of the dangers of self-representation.
• Stano v. Dugger
  921 F.2d 1125· 11th Cir.· 1991-01-02 ·cited 17×
  Gerald Eugene Stano appealed the denial of his federal habeas corpus petition challenging his death sentences for two murders, raising claims of self-representation and ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment. The Eleventh Circuit en banc held that Stano's gui
• Sanchez v. Eloy Mondragon
  858 F.2d 1462· 10th Cir.· 1988-10-06 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the trial court's inquiry into the defendant's decision to waive counsel and proceed pro se was inadequate, violating his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
• United States v. Cochran
  770 F.2d 850· 9th Cir.· 1985-09-06 ·cited 17×
  The court held that a district court's failure to conduct a colloquy with a defendant before accepting a written jury trial waiver does not automatically constitute reversible error.
• Cirio v. State
  440 So. 2d 650· Fla. 2d DCA· 1983-11-18 ·cited 17×
  A defendant's waiver of the right to a jury trial must be affirmatively shown from the record to be knowing, voluntary, and intelligent.
• Wright v. State
  161 So. 3d 442· Fla. 5th DCA· 2014-05-30 ·cited 16×
  Amber Wright appeals her first-degree murder conviction, contending that law enforcement's failure to timely provide Miranda warnings tainted her admissions. The Fifth District Court of Appeal agrees and reverses, finding that Wright's third interview—conducted after delayed Mira
• Rodriguez v. State
  982 So. 2d 1272· Fla. 3d DCA· 2008-06-04 ·cited 16×·via Knowing And Intelligent Waiver Of Counsel
  The trial court committed reversible error by failing to conduct a Faretta inquiry after the defendant made an unequivocal demand to represent himself.
• Brown v. State
  971 So. 2d 270· Fla. 1st DCA· 2008-01-07 ·cited 16×
  The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a defendant's criminal convictions because the trial court failed to conduct an adequate Faretta inquiry before accepting the defendant's waiver of the right to counsel. The court held that while the trial court informed the defendant
• A.D.W. v. State
  777 So. 2d 1101· Fla. 2d DCA· 2001-01-26 ·cited 16×
  The trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by entering a guilty plea for the juvenile over his objection, based on a modified rehabilitation plan that was not a valid plea agreement.
• Langon v. State
  791 So. 2d 1105· Fla. 4th DCA· 1999-07-28 ·cited 16×·via Knowing And Intelligent Waiver Of Counsel
  Steven Langon appealed his conviction for first-degree murder with a firearm and related charges, challenging the trial court's acceptance of his waiver of the right to counsel and denial of a continuance. The Fourth District affirmed the conviction, holding that although the tri
• Payne v. State
  642 So. 2d 111· Fla. 1st DCA· 1994-09-08 ·cited 16×
  A trial court must give the same warnings about the dangers of self-representation to a defendant who proceeds with standby counsel as to one who proceeds entirely pro se, because the court cannot predict at the outset how much of his own defense the defendant will conduct and th
• Taylor v. State
  605 So. 2d 958· Fla. 2d DCA· 1992-09-30 ·cited 16×
  Charles Taylor appeals his conviction for aggravated battery with a firearm, contending the trial judge erred by accepting his waiver of counsel without conducting the required inquiries under Faretta and Nelson. The court found reversible error and reversed, holding that a trial
• United States v. Casiano
  929 F.2d 1046· 5th Cir.· 1991-04-26 ·cited 16×
  A defendant can waive their Sixth Amendment right to conflict-free counsel, provided the waiver is voluntary, knowing, and intelligent, and the trial court actively participates in ensuring the defendant understands the potential conflicts and consequences.
• Savage v. Estelle
  908 F.2d 508· 9th Cir.· 1990-07-16 ·cited 16×
  A trial court may permissibly deny a criminal defendant the right to represent himself if a severe speech impediment renders him unable to abide by the rules of courtroom procedure and communicate effectively with the jury.