455 So. 2d 543 | Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 1984
This is an appeal from a denial of a motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. As ground for relief appellant alleged that the trial court erred in failing to appoint counsel to represent him at the evidentiary hearing held on his motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm.
The trial court ordered an evidentiary hearing on appellant’s motion. Appellant was present at the hearing and was afforded an opportunity to examine all witnesses — both those witnesses who appeared on his behalf, and the state’s witnesses. In addition, appellant testified in his own behalf.
We hold that given the circumstances of this case, where the issue was not complex and there was no need for substantial legal research,
WHEN A TRIAL COURT HAS DETERMINED THAT IT IS NECESSARY TO HOLD AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON ALLEGATIONS RAISED IN A MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF, IS COURT-APPOINTED COUNSEL FOR AN INDIGENT DEFENDANT MANDATORY OR IS SUCH APPOINTMENT PROPERLY LEFT TO THE DISCRETION OF THE TRIAL COURT?
AFFIRMED.
"The adversary nature of the proceeding, its complexity, the need for an evidentiary hearing, or the need for substantial legal research are all important elements which may require the appointment of counsel.”
. Graham v. State, 372 So.2d 1363, 1366 (Fla.1979)—