Rinaldo v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rinaldo v. State

861 So. 2d 510, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 18759, 2003 WL 22909071

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 10, 2003

DocketNos. 4D03-1292, 4D03-3525

StatusPublished

This text of 861 So. 2d 510 (Rinaldo 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

Rinaldo v. State, 861 So. 2d 510, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 18759, 2003 WL 22909071 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The court sua sponte redesignates the appeal of the denial of appellant’s pretrial motion to receive “unfettered assistance” of counsel while acting pro se as a petition for writ of certiorari and denies the same. See Logan v. State, 846 So.2d 472, 474-75 (Fla.2003) (recognizing a defendant has no constitutional right “to partially represent himself and, at the same time, be partially represented by counsel”); Brooks v. State, 703 So.2d 504, 505 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (noting defendant has no constitutional right to combine right of self-representation with right to assistance of counsel).

The consolidated petition for habe-as corpus relief is also denied. Petitioner does not have a constitutional right to a twelve-member jury. See Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 86, 90 S.Ct. 1893, 26 L.Ed.2d 446 (1970) (holding twelve person jury panel “is not a necessary ingredient of ‘trial by jury,’ ” and a six-member panel does not violate defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights); Gibson v. State, 16 Fla. 291, 300 (1877) (finding “a jury composed of six persons is a constitutional jury”). As to the claim that the 1934 amendment to Section 10 of the Declaration of Rights of the Florida Constitution is null and void, that was an amendment to the 1885 constitution. The citizens of Florida enacted a new constitution in 1968, thus superceding any prior constitutional provisions. Petitioner was informed against for the crimes for which he is being held pursuant to [511]*511Article I, Section 15(a) of the Florida Constitution.

WARNER, STEVENSON and GROSS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The court sua sponte redesignates the appeal of the denial of appellant’s pretrial motion to receive “unfettered assistance” of counsel while acting pro se as a petition for writ of certiorari and denies the same. See Logan v. State, 846 So.2d 472, 474-75 (Fla.2003) (recognizing a defendant has no constitutional right “to partially represent himself and, at the same time, be partially represented by counsel”); Brooks v. State, 703 So.2d 504, 505 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (noting defendant has no constitutional right to combine right of self-representation with right to assistance of counsel).

The consolidated petition for habe-as corpus relief is also denied. Petitioner does not have a constitutional right to a twelve-member jury. See Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 86, 90 S.Ct. 1893, 26 L.Ed.2d 446 (1970) (holding twelve person jury panel “is not a necessary ingredient of ‘trial by jury,’ ” and a six-member panel does not violate defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights); Gibson v. State, 16 Fla. 291, 300 (1877) (finding “a jury composed of six persons is a constitutional jury”). As to the claim that the 1934 amendment to Section 10 of the Declaration of Rights of the Florida Constitution is null and void, that was an amendment to the 1885 constitution. The citizens of Florida enacted a new constitution in 1968, thus superceding any prior constitutional provisions. Petitioner was informed against for the crimes for which he is being held pursuant to [511]*511Article I, Section 15(a) of the Florida Constitution.

WARNER, STEVENSON and GROSS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

861 So. 2d 510, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 18759, 2003 WL 22909071, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rinaldo-v-state-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack