James Robertson v. State of Florida
143 So. 3d 907
Fla.2014Background
- Robertson, a death-sentenced inmate, seeks appellate counsel’s withdrawal from his direct appeal under rule 4-1.2(a).
- Florida automatically requires the Supreme Court to review death judgments and sentences under article V, section 3(b)(1) and Fla. Stat. 921.141(4).
- Maj. precedent holds that the Court must review both judgment and sentence to ensure constitutional and statutory compliance, even if the defendant desires execution.
- Klokoc v. State and Ocha v. State require counsel to provide diligent advocacy on both judgment and sentence; a defendant may have limited ability to influence issues raised.
- Robertson’s counsel argues that requiring adversarial briefing against the death penalty would violate ethics or defendant autonomy; the State asks the Court to reject withdrawal and proceed with review.
- Court denies the motion to withdraw, allows Robertson to file a pro se supplemental brief, and emphasizes continued duty to conduct automatic review in capital cases.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can appellate counsel be required to file an adversarial brief opposing the death penalty? | Robertson], through counsel, desires the death sentence and argues withdrawal is necessary. | State argues compelling counsel to file adversarial brief ensures proper review and uniform application of law. | No ethical violation; Klokoc approach required. |
| Does Klokoc/Ocha conflict with Robertson’s personal autonomy to refuse appellate advocacy? | Robertson asserts right to autonomy in not pursuing a direct appeal. | Court maintains duty to ensure automatic review and reasonable advocacy; autonomy not absolute. | Autonomy does not override mandatory review; Klokoc method remains appropriate. |
| Whether the automatic review framework precludes waiving the right to appeal in capital cases. | Robertson requests waiver via not pursuing appeal. | Automatic review is mandatory and not a waiver; defendant’s right to appeal can be foregone. | Waiver not recognized; automatic review persists. |
| Should the case be remanded to determine a knowing, intelligent, voluntary waiver of the right to appeal? | Dissent argues remand for waiver evaluation. | Majority denies need for remand. | Not necessary; no waiver found at this stage. |
Key Cases Cited
- Goode v. State, 365 So.2d 381 (Fla.1978) (death penalty review standards require examination of all constitutional and statutory safeguards)
- Tillman v. State, 591 So.2d 167 (Fla.1991) (emphasizes uniformity and essential review in capital cases)
- Yacob v. State, 136 So.3d 539 (Fla.2014) (reiterates necessity of meaningful appellate review in death cases)
- Klokoc v. State, 589 So.2d 219 (Fla.1991) (requires adversarial briefing to test both judgment and sentence)
- Ocha v. State, 826 So.2d 956 (Fla.2002) (confirms obligation to test death sentence in Florida law)
- Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (U.S. 1976) (upheld structured capital review to avoid arbitrary imposition of death penalty)
- Fitzpatrick v. State, 527 So.2d 809 (Fla.1988) (death penalty review begins with premise that death is different)