Alexander v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Alexander v. State

446 So. 2d 1189, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12367

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 21, 1984

DocketNo. 83-1383

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 446 So. 2d 1189 (Alexander v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alexander v. State, 446 So. 2d 1189, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12367 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

RYDER, Judge.

Harvey Alexander alleges his right to counsel was violated by the trial court by accepting a purported waiver of counsel without making an adequate inquiry into the intelligent nature of his so called waiver. We • reluctantly agree and reverse.

Alexander was charged with grand theft in violation of section 812.014, Florida Statutes (1981). He.was arraigned before one judge who, after a short colloquy with Alexander, found he had waived his rights to counsel and to jury trial. Later, the matter was tried before a different judge without a jury. Alexander was found guilty as charged and sentenced to prison for two years. Neither judge made an adequate inquiry into Alexander’s purported waiver and in view of our holdings in Morgano v. State, 439 So.2d 924 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) and Williams v. State, 427 So.2d 768 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), we hold that both judges below failed to make a penetrating and comprehensive examination of Alexander so that they could treat his implicit waiver of the right to counsel as a knowing and intelligent one.

Therefore, we REVERSE the judgment and sentence and REMAND for a new trial.

HOBSON, A.C.J., and LEHAN, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

RYDER, Judge.

Harvey Alexander alleges his right to counsel was violated by the trial court by accepting a purported waiver of counsel without making an adequate inquiry into the intelligent nature of his so called waiver. We • reluctantly agree and reverse.

Alexander was charged with grand theft in violation of section 812.014, Florida Statutes (1981). He.was arraigned before one judge who, after a short colloquy with Alexander, found he had waived his rights to counsel and to jury trial. Later, the matter was tried before a different judge without a jury. Alexander was found guilty as charged and sentenced to prison for two years. Neither judge made an adequate inquiry into Alexander’s purported waiver and in view of our holdings in Morgano v. State, 439 So.2d 924 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) and Williams v. State, 427 So.2d 768 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), we hold that both judges below failed to make a penetrating and comprehensive examination of Alexander so that they could treat his implicit waiver of the right to counsel as a knowing and intelligent one.

Therefore, we REVERSE the judgment and sentence and REMAND for a new trial.

HOBSON, A.C.J., and LEHAN, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

446 So. 2d 1189, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12367, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alexander-v-state-fladistctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack