From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Greenwood v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Oct 6, 1998
720 So. 2d 548 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

Summary

finding that the court did not fail to conduct a proper Nelson inquiry where the appellant "neither made an unequivocal request to discharge, nor stated that incompetency was the basis for his unhappiness with counsel."

Summary of this case from Dunn v. State

Opinion

No. 97-2666.

August 12, 1998. Rehearing, Certification of Conflict, and Certification of Question Denied October 6, 1998.

Appeal from the 19th Judicial Circuit Court, St. Lucie County, Larry Schack, J.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Anthony Calvello, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Ettie Feistmann, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.


We affirm appellant's conviction and sentence, finding that the trial court did not err in failing to conduct a proper Nelson inquiry because appellant neither made an unequivocal request to discharge court appointed counsel, nor stated that incompetency was the basis for his unhappiness with counsel. See Woody v. State, 698 So.2d 391, 391 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Moreover, appellant proceeded to trial with his counsel and made no attempt to dismiss him or request self-representation. See Davis v. State, 703 So.2d 1055, 1058-59 (Fla. 1997), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 118 S.Ct. 2327, 141 L.Ed.2d 701 (1998). Finally, his claim that the trial court erred in failing to advise him of his right of self-representation after it had found that his appointed counsel was rendering effective representation is without merit, as the supreme court has found no such obligation on the part of the trial court. See Watts v. State, 593 So.2d 198, 203 (Fla.), cert. denied, 505 U.S. 1210, 112 S.Ct. 3006, 120 L.Ed.2d 881 (1992).

Nelson v. State, 274 So.2d 256, 258-59 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973), approved by Hardwick v. State, 521 So.2d 1071, 1074-75 (Fla. 1988).

With respect to his sentence, we affirm appellant's due process challenge to section 921.001(5). See Gardner v. State, 661 So.2d 1274, 1276 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). Secondly, we affirm the length of his sentence based on Mays v. State, 23 Fla. L. Weekly S387, 717 So.2d 515 (Fla. 1998). Although the written judgment of sentence does not conform to the oral pronouncement, no motion to correct the sentence was filed. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.800(b). The issue is thus not preserved for appeal. See Fla.R.App.P. 9.140(d); Hyden v. State, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D1342, 715 So.2d 960 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).

DELL, WARNER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Greenwood v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Oct 6, 1998
720 So. 2d 548 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

finding that the court did not fail to conduct a proper Nelson inquiry where the appellant "neither made an unequivocal request to discharge, nor stated that incompetency was the basis for his unhappiness with counsel."

Summary of this case from Dunn v. State
Case details for

Greenwood v. State

Case Details

Full title:Cleon GREENWOOD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Date published: Oct 6, 1998

Citations

720 So. 2d 548 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

Citing Cases

Maddox v. State

In a number of cases pending on review, the defendant claims that the written sentence is in error because it…

Greenwood v. State

PER CURIAM. We have for review Greenwood v. State, 720 So.2d 548 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), a decision of the…