Title: Hill v. State

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

656 So. 2d 1271 (1995)
Paul Jennings HILL, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 84838.

Supreme Court of Florida.
June 22, 1995.
Paul Jennings Hill, Starke, pro se.
*1272 Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender and W.C. McLain, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Carolyn Snurkowski and Richard B. Martell, Asst. Attys. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Paul Jennings Hill was charged with first-degree murder in Escambia County. Upon his motion, Hill was permitted to represent himself at the trial, together with standby counsel. Hill was convicted and sentenced to death. His appeal is now pending in this Court, and he is represented by the public defender. Hill has now moved for leave to represent himself on appeal and to discharge the public defender's office as appellate counsel. We have jurisdiction under article V, section 3(b)(1) of the Florida Constitution.
Pursuant to our directive, the Honorable Elzie S. Sanders, Circuit Judge of the Eighth Judicial Circuit of Florida, conducted a hearing on Hill's motion. Judge Sanders found that Hill comprehends his constitutional right to assistance of counsel in the appeal process and has knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to assistance of counsel in the appeal. Judge Sanders recommended that Hill be permitted to represent himself but that the public defender continue in the case as "next friend of the court."
The principle of Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S. Ct. 2525, 45 L. Ed. 2d 562 (1975), concerning self-representation is not applicable to appeals. Indeed, the Faretta court cited with approval Price v. Johnston, 334 U.S. 266, 68 S. Ct. 1049, 92 L. Ed. 1356 (1948). Faretta, 422 U.S.  at 816, 95 S. Ct.  at 2531-32. In Price, the United States Supreme Court stated:
334 U.S.  at 285, 68 S. Ct.  at 1060 (citations and footnote omitted).
The transcript of the hearing clearly supports Judge Sanders' findings with respect to Hill's competency and knowing and voluntary waiver of assistance of counsel. However, this is the direct appeal of a capital case. The Court is concerned that it cannot properly carry out its statutory responsibility to review Hill's conviction and sentence of death without the skilled adversarial assistance of a lawyer acting on Hill's behalf, particularly as it concerns the sufficiency of the evidence to convict and the proportionality of the death sentence. As this Court stated in Klokoc v. State, 589 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 1991), when the defendant moved to dismiss the appeal from his death sentence:
Id. at 221-22 (quoting order on motion to dismiss appeal). Thus, we deny Hill's motion. Because this is a capital case, we will permit Hill to file a pro se supplemental brief on or before the time within which his attorney's brief shall be filed.
It is so ordered.
GRIMES, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, KOGAN, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.