STOKES v. STATE (2022)

Marquis Stokes appeals the trial court's denial of his motion for postconviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. Stokes argues the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for appointment of counsel because he was unable to adequately present and argue his motion. There is “no absolute right to counsel in postconviction proceedings.” Simmons v. State, 99 So. 3d 620, 623 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). The supreme court has provided factors for consideration when determining whether to appoint counsel in a postconviction proceeding, including the adversarial nature of the proceeding, the proceeding's complexity, the need for an evidentiary hearing, and the need for substantial legal research. Graham v. State, 372 So. 2d 1363, 1366 (Fla. 1979). Those factors are useful in determining the ultimate question: “whether, under the circumstances, the assistance of counsel is essential to accomplish a fair and thorough presentation of the petitioner's claims.” Id. at 1365.

Here, the claims at issue related to the performance of trial defense counsel. Stokes clearly articulated his arguments on the alleged deficiencies at his hearing. He was able to effectively cross-examine trial defense counsel while thoughtfully arguing each of the five grounds in his motion for postconviction relief. It is clear from the record that Stokes did not need the assistance of counsel to present his arguments fairly and thoroughly. The trial court, therefore, did not abuse its discretion when it denied Stokes’ motion to appoint counsel.

Affirmed.

Long, J.

Osterhaus and Winokur, JJ., concur.