Gordon v. State
75 So. 3d 200
| Fla. | 2011Background
- Gordon, a death-sentenced prisoner, appeals a circuit court order denying postconviction relief.
- Gordon sought to discharge appellate counsel and proceed pro se in the postconviction appeal; counsel sought leave to withdraw.
- Court issues an interlocutory opinion to set the standard for pro se representation in capital postconviction appeals.
- Following Davis v. State, the Court holds death-sentenced appellants may not proceed pro se in postconviction appeals, no constitutional right exists.
- The Court emphasizes counsel-assisted review furthers fair, consistent, and timely capital postconviction review and administrative efficiency.
- Dissent would permit waiving counsel, arguing lack of remedy for ineffective appellate counsel in postconviction appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Right to pro se in postconviction appeals | Gordon seeks pro se; argues a right exists. | State contends no right; requires counsel. | No right to pro se; upheld no-pro se rule. |
| Authority to discharge counsel in this appeal | Gordon wishes to discharge counsel and represent himself. | Court should deny to ensure quality review and fairness. | Motion to discharge counsel denied. |
| Need for counsel in capital postconviction appeals | Counsel not required if pro se is allowed. | Counsel is essential for fair, reliable review and efficiency. | Counsel required; pro se not permitted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. State, 789 So.2d 978 (Fla. 2001) (death-sentenced prisoners may not proceed pro se in direct appeals or postconviction appeals)
- Martinez v. Court of Appeal of California, 528 U.S. 152 (U.S. 2000) (no federal constitutional right to self-representation on initial appeal)
- Klokoc v. State, 589 So.2d 219 (Fla. 1991) (no state constitutional right to proceed pro se in direct capital appeals)
- Arbelaez v. Butterworth, 738 So.2d 326 (Fla. 1999) (importance of counsel in capital proceedings and related due process concerns)
- White v. Board of County Comm’rs, 537 So.2d 1376 (Fla. 1989) (counsel's crucial role in capital cases and indigent defense obligations)
- Wilson v. Wainwright, 474 So.2d 1162 (Fla. 1985) (basic due process requires effective advocacy at trial levels)
- Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 (U.S. 1982) (capital punishment must be imposed fairly and with reasonable consistency)