Clark v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Clark v. State

442 So. 2d 1044, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 25112

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 14, 1983

DocketNo. 82-2209

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 442 So. 2d 1044 (Clark 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

Clark v. State, 442 So. 2d 1044, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 25112 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse defendant’s judgment of conviction and sentence because the record does not reflect a knowing and intelligent waiver of his constitutional right to assistance of counsel. We indicated in Mansfield, v. State, 430 So.2d 586, 588 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) that “[i]f the defendant does not want the services of his appointed public defender, for whatever reason, the trial court must then point out the dangers and disadvantages of his conduct.” Moreover, Rule 3.111(d)(5), Fla.R.Crim.P., requires that “[i]f a waiver is accepted at any stage of the proceedings, the offer of assistance of counsel shall be renewed by the court at each subsequent stage of the proceedings at which the defendant appears without counsel.” In the case at bar, neither requirement was fulfilled. Therefore, the judgment of conviction and sentence are reversed and1 the cause is remanded for new trial.

REVERSED & REMANDED.

GLICKSTEIN and HURLEY, JJ., and SMITH, CHARLES E., Associate Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We reverse defendant’s judgment of conviction and sentence because the record does not reflect a knowing and intelligent waiver of his constitutional right to assistance of counsel. We indicated in Mansfield, v. State, 430 So.2d 586, 588 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) that “[i]f the defendant does not want the services of his appointed public defender, for whatever reason, the trial court must then point out the dangers and disadvantages of his conduct.” Moreover, Rule 3.111(d)(5), Fla.R.Crim.P., requires that “[i]f a waiver is accepted at any stage of the proceedings, the offer of assistance of counsel shall be renewed by the court at each subsequent stage of the proceedings at which the defendant appears without counsel.” In the case at bar, neither requirement was fulfilled. Therefore, the judgment of conviction and sentence are reversed and1 the cause is remanded for new trial.

REVERSED & REMANDED.

GLICKSTEIN and HURLEY, JJ., and SMITH, CHARLES E., Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

442 So. 2d 1044, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 25112, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clark-v-state-fladistctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack