Donald O. Williams v. State , 215 So. 3d 1248 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •          IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
    FIFTH DISTRICT
    NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
    FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
    DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
    DONALD OTIS WILLIAMS,
    Petitioner,
    v.                                                             Case No. 5D16-2358
    STATE OF FLORIDA,
    Respondent.
    ________________________________/
    Opinion filed March 24, 2017
    Petition Alleging Ineffectiveness
    of Appellate Counsel,
    A Case of Original Jurisdiction.
    Donald Otis Williams, Raiford, pro se.
    Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General,
    Tallahassee, and Douglas T. Squire,
    Assistant Attorney General, Daytona
    Beach, for Respondent.
    WALLIS, J.
    Donald Otis Williams filed a petition pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate
    Procedure 9.141(d), alleging that his appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance by
    not raising a claim that the trial court failed to offer counsel for the sentencing portion of
    his violation of probation hearing.1 We grant the petition and remand for further
    proceedings consistent with this opinion.
    When reviewing a petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, "we
    must determine whether counsel's performance was deficient and, if so, whether 'the
    deficiency of that performance compromised the appellate process to such a degree as
    to undermine confidence in the fairness and correctness of the appellate result.'" Pierce
    v. State, 
    121 So. 3d 1091
    , 1093 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (quoting Lopez v. State, 
    68 So. 3d 332
    , 333 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)). Our court has held:
    [I]f a defendant waives the right to counsel at any stage of the
    criminal proceedings, the trial court must renew the offer of
    assistance of counsel at each subsequent stage of the
    proceedings. Sentencing is a critical stage in criminal
    proceedings; and, even if a defendant does not request
    appointment of counsel, this omission is not considered a
    knowing waiver of the right to counsel.
    Hays v. State, 
    63 So. 3d 887
    , 888 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (alteration in original) (quoting
    Hardy v. State, 
    655 So. 2d 1245
    , 1247–48 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)); see also Fla. R. Crim.
    P. 3.111(d)(5) ("[I]f a waiver is accepted at any stage of the proceedings, the offer of
    assistance of counsel shall be renewed by the court at each subsequent stage of the
    proceedings at which the defendant appears without counsel."). A trial court's failure to
    offer counsel for sentencing ordinarily constitutes fundamental error. Jackson v. State,
    
    983 So. 2d 562
    , 575 (Fla. 2008). Thus, appellate counsel provides ineffective assistance
    by not raising the issue on appeal. Henretty v. State, 
    146 So. 3d 55
    , 56 (Fla. 1st DCA
    1  Petitioner raises two additional claims of ineffective assistance of appellate
    counsel that we deny without further discussion.
    2
    2014) (finding appellate counsel ineffective and ordering a new appeal); Blane v. State,
    
    987 So. 2d 241
    , 241 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (same).
    The record reflects that the trial court offered to appoint Williams counsel at the
    outset of the violation of probation hearing, but Williams declined. However, after finding
    that Williams violated his probation, the trial court immediately proceeded to sentencing
    before renewing the offer for counsel. The trial court's failure to renew the offer is
    fundamental error, which, if raised on appeal, would have resulted in a reversal and
    remand for a new sentencing hearing. See 
    Henretty, 146 So. 3d at 56
    . We note that,
    under these circumstances, appellate courts often grant the petitioner a new appeal. See
    
    id. Nonetheless, having
    already determined that the trial court erred by failing to renew
    the offer for counsel, we find that ordering a new appeal would result in unnecessary
    redundancy. See Johnson v. Wainwright, 
    498 So. 2d 938
    , 939 (Fla. 1986) ("In this
    instance, however, a new appeal would be redundant because we acknowledge that
    reversible error occurred at trial."); accord Hampton v. State, 
    178 So. 3d 921
    , 922 (Fla.
    5th DCA 2015); Pierce v. State, 
    121 So. 3d 1091
    , 1094 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013); Disinger v.
    State, 
    574 So. 2d 268
    , 269 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). Therefore, we grant the petition and
    remand with instructions to vacate Williams's sentence and to hold a new sentencing
    hearing at which the trial court must offer to appoint Williams counsel.
    PETITION GRANTED; REMANDED with Instructions.
    COHEN, C.J. and ORFINGER, J., concur.
    3