Case Name: Willie James OLIVER, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2003-01-10
Citations: 834 So. 2d 910
Docket Number: No. 5D02-3147
Parties: Willie James OLIVER, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
Judges: GRIFFIN, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 834
Pages: 910–913

Head Matter:
Willie James OLIVER, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
No. 5D02-3147.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Jan. 10, 2003.
Willie James Oliver, Cocoa, pro se.,
Charlie Christ, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kellie A. Nielan, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Respondent.

Opinion:
COBB, Senior Judge.
Oliver seeks a belated appeal pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(c). We grant the petition for the reason that the transcript of the sentencing hearing demonstrates that Oliver asked for an appeal at that time and the trial court found Oliver to be indigent for appellate purposes. No appeal was filed, however. Because of this record, we believe Oliver has established his right to a belated appeal without the necessity for an evidentiary hearing.
On the other hand, we do not accept the argument that, in the absence of a definitive record (such as we have in this case), the petition for a belated appeal must be automatically granted unless the State can come forward with an affidavit or statement from the petitioner's trial counsel denying that any request for an appeal was made by the petitioner outside the scope of the court record. We believe that approach is a misconstruction of the language in State v. Trowell, 739 So.2d 77 (Fla.1999).
Trowell indicates that an evidentiary hearing in the trial court may be ordered by the appellate court where the State has raised "a good faith basis to dispute the defendant's claims through affidavit or specific contrary allegation." See Trowell at 81. But what is a good faith basis for such disputes? Does this mean that such contrary allegations can come only from a voluntary statement submitted by defense counsel, who may be a reluctant witness?
The State typically is not privy to the discussions between the convicted criminal and his counsel and must try to ascertain whether there is any dispute about the timely request by communicating with the defense lawyer. If defense counsel cannot be found or will not communicate with the State concerning whether an appeal was timely requested, a rule that the belated appeal must be granted will encourage bogus claims and increase the number of unwarranted appeals. A defense lawyer who could not represent to the State in good faith that his client did make'a timely request could simply duck the issue by ducking the call. It makes more sense in such a circumstance to send it back to have the trial court determine the facts. We do not believe the Trowell court had the situation in mind where the State represents that it has been unable to communicate with defense counsel.
The more reasonable interpretation of the language in Trowell is that an allegation by the State that a good faith effort to contact defense counsel was unsuccessful would imply a dispute and furnish the basis for an evidentiary hearing at which defense counsel would be a compellable witness. It is one thing for an attorney to duck a call, and something quite different to commit perjury at an evidentiary hearing. Absent such an interpretation, Rule 9.141(c) can be used, and misused, as a procedural device to transmute the 30-day limit for the initiation of criminal appeals into a two-year period. Surely, this result could not have been contemplated by Tro-well. If it was, the Florida Supreme Court simply could amend the time requirement in the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure for the initiation of criminal appeals.
Our opinion in Denson v. State, 710 So.2d 144 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), is relied upon by the petitioner. Denson, however, preceded Trowell and is distinguishable from it. It determined that Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(j), as revised, did not require a sworn affidavit from trial counsel as supporting documentation for a petition for belated appeal; rather, it was simply required that the petition be under oath with facially sufficient allegations by the petitioner. Den-son did not deal with the question of whether, the State can dispute those allegations "in good faith" absent supporting documentation from defense counsel so as to warrant an evidentiary hearing, which is the question raised (although not dis-positive) by the petitioner in the instant case.
Petition for Belated Appeal Granted.
GRIFFIN, J., concurs.
SHARP, W., J., concurring specially in result only.
. For example, in the instant case the State alleged that it had "attempted to contact (defense counsel) on several occasions" and that "messages have been left, but (defense counsel) has not yet responded."