Kittybunny
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2015
- Messages
- 1,607
- Reaction score
- 18,825
You mean etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc…
FL - Sarah Boone, 42, charged with murdering boyfriend Jorge Torres, 42, by leaving him locked in suitcase, Winter Park, Feb 2020
- Thread starter Bishop Black
- Start date
New Posts
-
-
-
NY- Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs sued for rape, sex trafficking by singer Cassie
- Latest: imstilla.grandma
You mean etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc…
Her ex husband said the contrary. The day it happened he gave a statement and said she was a nightmare to deal with regarding the child.
cujenn81
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2013
- Messages
- 4,225
- Reaction score
- 22,283
IMO, this order will not be just cause for an appeal because there is legal precedent.
Per the court order linked below —
FORFEITURE OF RIGHT TO COUNSEL
OO. A defendant in a criminal case can forfeit a right to court-appointed counsel.
PP. “[A] forfeiture is an extreme measure that flows ‘from the defendant's abuse or manipulation of [the right to counsel] and results in the defendant being required to represent himself even though he has not waived counsel and may still want legal representation.” K.R. v. Dep't of Children & Families, 368 So. 3d 986, 991 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023) citing Commonwealth v. Means, 454 Mass. 81, 907 N.E.2d 646, 652 (2009). Forfeiture is a “judicial response that adapts the course of the legal proceedings to the defendant's choice to engage in misconduct that undermines the legitimate exercise of the right to counsel.” Id. citing to State v. Nisbet, 134 A.3d 840, 853 n.3 (Me. 2016) citing Means, 907 N.E.2d at 652.
QQ. As set forth above, Defendant’s recalcitrance to the attorneys who were not conflicted out (Padilla, Bankowitz, Hobson, and Cashman), antagonism, hostility, and attacks on the professionalism of Padilla (notably, over a year after the fact, see footnote 9 above), of Bankowitz, and of Cashman, and personal attacks on Padilla, Bankowitz, and Cashman. Each of these attorneys were required to withdraw.
RR. It has become apparent to the Court that Defendant will not permit herself to be represented by anyone. See also United States v. Travers, 996 F. Supp. 6, 8-15 and 16-17 (S.D. Fla. 1998).
SS. Additionally, the withdrawal of eight different attorneys, seven of which were court appointed, leads to a determination that Defendant had forfeited his right to counsel. See Watson v. State, 718 So. 2d 253, 253 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) receded from on other grounds by Waller v. State, 911 So. 2d 226, 228 & n.2 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).
TT. Under Florida law, the facts at bar amount to a binding forfeiture of the right to counsel. See Jackson v. State, 2 So. 3d 1036, 1037 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)
UU. As the Court finds Defendant has forfeited the right to court-appointed counsel, under Florida law there is no obligation to conduct a Faretta hearing or to otherwise warn a defendant of the dangers of proceeding pro se. See Bowden v. State, 150 So. 3d 264, 268 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014).
WAIVER BY CONDUCT
VV. The Court can find a waiver by conduct to the right to counsel. “[A] ‘waiver by conduct’ requires that a defendant be warned about the consequences of his conduct, including the risks of proceeding pro se.” United States v. Goldberg, 67 F.3d 1092, 1101 (3d Cir. 1995).
WW. On February 9, 2024, Defendant was twice advised that another court appointed attorney may not be provided.
XX. On May 10, 2022, Defendant was advised about the dangers of self-representation.
YY. On February 9, 2024, Defendant was advised about the dangers of self-representation.
ZZ. As of February 9, 2024, the instant case had been continued 16 times.
AAA. As of June 26, 2024, this case has been pending 4 years, 3 months, 5 days from the date of the filing of the information on March 23, 2020.
BBB. Actions speak louder than words. Although Defendant’s words seemingly reveal a desire to go to trial, however, as set forth herein, her actions and inability to work with court appointed counsel, are repeated over and over. Allowing Defendant to her eighth court appointed attorney (her ninth attorney overall) will only serve to delay the case further and encourage Defendant to persist in efforts to prevent the resolution of the case on its merits (the concept of which was first brought Defendant’s attention on May 10, 2022). Defendant complains that Bankowitz and Hobson (two court-appointed attorneys) failed to meet and communicate and when Defendant is provided court-appointed counsel who will meet and communicate (Cashman), the ways and means of meeting and communicating are unacceptable to Defendant.
CCC. Under Florida law, the facts at bar amount to a binding waiver of the right to counsel. See Jackson v. State, 2 So. 3d 1036, 1037 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)