County Court's Order Denying DUI Defendant's Motion to Withdraw Plea of No Contest Affirmed Appellate Court Found Defendant Knowingly and Voluntarily Waived Right to Attorney

A criminal defendant has a right to have an attorney represent him or her when the individual is accused of a criminal offense in which a sentence of imprisonment or an adjudication of guilty is possible. An individual has a right to represent himself in a criminal proceeding if he wants to do so. The defendant must effectively waive the assistance of an attorney so that the defendant can represent himself. A defendant must knowingly & voluntarily waive his right to counsel in order for the waiver to be legallyeffective. Simply put, a defendant is required to be aware of the right that he waiving, know of the consequences of waiving that right and waive the right voluntarilyon his own free will without any coercion.

To determine whether the right has been effectively waived, the court must conduct an inquiry. The trialcourt will ask the defendant questions with regard to his waiver in order to make a legal determination as to whether the waiver was a knowing and voluntary waiver of rights. As set forth below, an individual can move to set aside a conviction if his waiver was either unknowning or involuntary.



The case below is a second tier appeal. Defendant plead guilty to a DUI charge, without the assistance of of a lawyer, in the County Court. The defendant's first appeal was to the Circuit Court. The second appeal is known as a writ of certiorari, which is a discretionary review of the Circuit Court's order. The 2nd appeal is in the District Court of Appeal.

In the matter of Edenfield v. State of Florida, the appellate court denied thedefendant's petition for writ of certiorari in which defendant contended that his procedural due process rights had been violated because the county court failed to ascertain whether his waiver of the right to an attorney, in order to defend him against a DUI charge was knowing and intelligent. Before the defendant entered his plea of no contest to the charge of driving under the influence, defendant, as well as other defendants, were given the opportunity & did watch a video which explained the rights of people accused of committing a criminal offense, signed waiver forms, and alsotestified in court that he wanted to represent himself. After analysis applying Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), & the relevant law in Florida the district court reached the conclusion that the county court had a sufficient basis to find a knowing & intelligent waiver of the defendant's rights under federal and state law & thus denied the defendant's petition for writ of certiorari.

For more information on Criminal Lawyer Miami FL and Dui Attorney Miami FL please contact us at: The Law Offices of Rosenberg and Dye 201 South Biscayne Boulevard
28th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
(305)429-3285