Richards v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Richards v. State

214 So. 2d 31, 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 4901

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 18, 1968

DocketNo. 68-63

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 214 So. 2d 31 (Richards 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

Richards v. State, 214 So. 2d 31, 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 4901 (Fla. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

MANN, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of breaking and entering, destruction of property and possession of burglary tools after a trial at which he handled his own defense. He complains that counsel was not appointed to defend him after his rejection, for no stated cause, of representation by the public defender. This case differs from Donald v. State, 166 So.2d 4S3 (Fla.App.1964), where the public defender withdrew and no replacement was appointed. It differs from King v. State, 157 So.2d 440 (Fla.App.1963), where the defendant’s rights were not communicated to him. It may not have been smart for Richards to reject counsel but his decision was intelligently (i. e. knowingly) made within the legal meaning of that term. He was advised of his rights. He was offered the services of the public defender or, if he could show cause, other counsel. He was told by the trial judge that he was not equipped to represent himself but he elected to do so anyway. There [32]*32is no error. Nor is error shown in the other questions raised.

Affirmed.

ALLEN, Acting C. J., and PIERCE, J., concur.

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

MANN, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of breaking and entering, destruction of property and possession of burglary tools after a trial at which he handled his own defense. He complains that counsel was not appointed to defend him after his rejection, for no stated cause, of representation by the public defender. This case differs from Donald v. State, 166 So.2d 4S3 (Fla.App.1964), where the public defender withdrew and no replacement was appointed. It differs from King v. State, 157 So.2d 440 (Fla.App.1963), where the defendant’s rights were not communicated to him. It may not have been smart for Richards to reject counsel but his decision was intelligently (i. e. knowingly) made within the legal meaning of that term. He was advised of his rights. He was offered the services of the public defender or, if he could show cause, other counsel. He was told by the trial judge that he was not equipped to represent himself but he elected to do so anyway. There [32]*32is no error. Nor is error shown in the other questions raised.

Affirmed.

ALLEN, Acting C. J., and PIERCE, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

214 So. 2d 31, 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 4901, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richards-v-state-fladistctapp-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack