Van Fuquay v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Van Fuquay v. State

386 So. 2d 1314, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 17012

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 27, 1980

DocketNo. NN-297/T1-75

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 386 So. 2d 1314 (Van Fuquay 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

Van Fuquay v. State, 386 So. 2d 1314, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 17012 (Fla. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

DAUKSCH, Chief Judge.

Appellant has raised the issue of incompetency of privately retained counsel in a criminal matter. In effect, he says he was denied due process and a fair trial because his trial counsel, not the same person as his appellate counsel, was incompetent and ineffective. This question has been answered in various cases and various Florida district courts where it has been held that no state action is involved in the alleged denial of due process or fair trial and appellant cannot complain about the ineffectiveness of his counsel whom he chose. State v. Garmise, 382 So.2d 769 (Fla.3d DCA 1980); Spencer v. State, 385 So.2d 119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980).

Appellant has not shown us reason to differ from the holdings in those cases so we decline to do so. In fact, even though we have on one occasion ordered appellant to supplement the record on appeal, with which order he less than completely complied, we have no record from the trial to determine whether counsel was incompetent. Although we are aware of the Rule 9.200(f)(2), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, which requires our affirmative action when an incomplete record is discerned, we are certain some limit should be reached at which we shall no longer prosecute the appeal for appellant. In order to demonstrate to the trial court and this court that appellant was denied effective assistance of counsel at trial it surely must be a starting point to show from the record at trial the particular instances or examples of the allegations of incompetence.

Based upon the above cited cases and because the record concerning this appeal from a denial of collateral relief under Rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, was not properly presented to the court below or this court, we affirm the order denying post-conviction relief. We are aware that some courts have held privately retained counsel to be so incompetent so as to turn the trial into a “farce” or “mockery” and thus cause an accused to be denied due process or effective assistance of counsel. We are also of the understanding our state Supreme Court may soon decide that issue in a case styled Vagner v. Wainwright, No. 56,201, which was referred to in Garmise as “Vargas.”

The order denying appellants petition for post conviction relief is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

ORFINGER, J., and EVANS, VERNON W., Jr., Associate Judge, concur.

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

DAUKSCH, Chief Judge.

Appellant has raised the issue of incompetency of privately retained counsel in a criminal matter. In effect, he says he was denied due process and a fair trial because his trial counsel, not the same person as his appellate counsel, was incompetent and ineffective. This question has been answered in various cases and various Florida district courts where it has been held that no state action is involved in the alleged denial of due process or fair trial and appellant cannot complain about the ineffectiveness of his counsel whom he chose. State v. Garmise, 382 So.2d 769 (Fla.3d DCA 1980); Spencer v. State, 385 So.2d 119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980).

Appellant has not shown us reason to differ from the holdings in those cases so we decline to do so. In fact, even though we have on one occasion ordered appellant to supplement the record on appeal, with which order he less than completely complied, we have no record from the trial to determine whether counsel was incompetent. Although we are aware of the Rule 9.200(f)(2), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, which requires our affirmative action when an incomplete record is discerned, we are certain some limit should be reached at which we shall no longer prosecute the appeal for appellant. In order to demonstrate to the trial court and this court that appellant was denied effective assistance of counsel at trial it surely must be a starting point to show from the record at trial the particular instances or examples of the allegations of incompetence.

Based upon the above cited cases and because the record concerning this appeal from a denial of collateral relief under Rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, was not properly presented to the court below or this court, we affirm the order denying post-conviction relief. We are aware that some courts have held privately retained counsel to be so incompetent so as to turn the trial into a “farce” or “mockery” and thus cause an accused to be denied due process or effective assistance of counsel. We are also of the understanding our state Supreme Court may soon decide that issue in a case styled Vagner v. Wainwright, No. 56,201, which was referred to in Garmise as “Vargas.”

The order denying appellants petition for post conviction relief is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

ORFINGER, J., and EVANS, VERNON W., Jr., Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

386 So. 2d 1314, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 17012, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/van-fuquay-v-state-fladistctapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack