 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Butler v. State8/16/2000
In this appeal from his convictions for bribery, conspiracy to commit bribery, and accepting illegal campaign contributions, appellant has raised one ground that merits discussion: whether the trial court erred by failing to conduct a Faretta inquiry before allowing appellant, an experienced criminal defense attorney, to represent himself in the proceedings below. We find under the facts of this case that there was no error and, therefore, affirm.
I.
In 1996, appellant, Philip Butler, a criminal defense attorney with twenty-five years experience, ran unsuccessfully for the position of State Attorney for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County. During the campaign, Butler approached a wealthy former client who was charged with DUI Manslaughter and assured him that if he assisted Butler in winning the election, Butler would make sure the client would never spend a day in jail. The client and his family then paid over $500,000 in cash and checks to Butler and his accomplice to be used for the campaign.
Butler was later arrested and charged with bribery, conspiracy to commit bribery, and several counts of accepting illegal campaign contributions. He filed a formal, written notice of appearance on behalf of himself which included a written plea of not guilty, waiver of arraignment, and demand for jury trial. He later filed and litigated numerous motions with attached legal memoranda raising various discovery, evidentiary, procedural, and constitutional issues.
There were several court appearances prior to trial during which Butler appeared on his own behalf. Neither the trial court nor Butler raised the issue of his self-representation before the trial. The case ultimately proceeded to a jury trial during which Butler continued to represent himself. At the conclusion of the trial, Butler was convicted of bribery, conspiracy to commit bribery, and several counts of receiving illegal campaign contributions.
Five days after the verdict, while representing himself, Butler filed a motion for a new trial alleging, inter alia, that the court erred by failing to conduct a Faretta inquiry to determine if he had knowingly waived his right to counsel. The trial court entered a written order denying the motion and found that Butler was a highly-skilled and experienced criminal defense attorney who was well aware of the dangers of self-representation. Butler had given a statement to investigators in which he stated that he had appeared fifteen to twenty times before the Florida Supreme Court, more than one hundred times before district courts of appeal, and that he had twenty-five years of experience as a criminal trial attorney. The trial court found further that Butler was the attorney of record in Kleinfeld v. State, 568 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), in which he successfully raised a Faretta claim before the Fourth District Court of Appeal. The court also noted that Butler was seeking the position as the head of criminal prosecutions for the entire Fifteenth Judicial Circuit.
II.
The first issue we must decide is whether Faretta and its progeny are even implicated in a case where the defendant is an attorney - particularly an experienced criminal defense attorney. As discussed in Judge Klein's specially concurring opinion, a compelling argument can be made that Faretta does not apply because the defendant was represented by competent counsel of his choice - himself. Thus, no waiver of counsel would have been necessary, since the defendant did have counsel. Indeed, the landmark case of Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), was not about the right of a defendant in a criminal case to be represented by counsel;
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Florida DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|