Home/District Court of Appeal of Florida/Pilla v. State

Pilla v. State

477 So. 2d 1088, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2488
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedNovember 6, 1985
Docket84-1943
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 477 So. 2d 1088 (Pilla 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
Pilla v. State, 477 So. 2d 1088, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2488 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Opinion

477 So.2d 1088 (1985)

John PILLA, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 84-1943.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

November 6, 1985.

*1089 Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Allen J. DeWeese, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Carolyn V. McCann, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

DOWNEY, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of driving while his license was suspended. He was sentenced to two years in prison, an enhanced sentence based upon consideration of six prior convictions, five of which were uncounseled convictions.

Prior to sentencing the state filed a notice to declare the defendant an habitual offender, based upon six prior convictions for driving while his license was suspended. The defense filed a response alleging that in five of the six convictions listed he was not represented by counsel, nor was counsel waived, and he could not afford counsel.

The state contended in the trial court, and here, that it was proper for the court to consider the uncounseled convictions until they were set aside in a post conviction proceeding. That legal position is unsound. The Supreme Court of the United States in Baldasar v. Illinois, 446 U.S. 222, 100 S.Ct. 1585, 64 L.Ed.2d 169 (1980), held an uncounseled conviction may not be used to enhance a sentence on a subsequent conviction unless the defendant waived his right to counsel. See also Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25, 92 S.Ct. 2006, 32 L.Ed.2d 530 (1972); Harrell v. State, 469 So.2d 169 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Hayes v. State, 468 So.2d 470 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985).

Accordingly, the sentence is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court to entertain further proof regarding the alleged prior convictions, and to sentence appellant in accordance with the foregoing authorities.

REVERSED AND REMANDED with directions.

LETTS and HURLEY, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Hlad v. State
585 So. 2d 928 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1991)
Broderick v. State
564 So. 2d 622 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)
Hlad v. State
565 So. 2d 762 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)
Leffew v. State
518 So. 2d 1376 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)
Lowe v. State
516 So. 2d 114 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1987)
Fretwell v. State
503 So. 2d 1000 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1987)
Pettway v. State
502 So. 2d 1353 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1987)
Kearse v. State
501 So. 2d 80 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1987)
Smith v. State
498 So. 2d 1009 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)
Evrard v. State
502 So. 2d 3 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)
Crigler v. State
487 So. 2d 420 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)
Chaffin v. State
480 So. 2d 700 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
477 So. 2d 1088, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2488, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pilla-v-state-fladistctapp-1985.