UNLAWFULCONVICTIONS.ORG
UNLAWFULCONVICTIONS.ORG
The Public Defender's Office worked against Mr. Anderson
Between March 3rd (bond hearing) and April 10th (plea date), Mr. Edwin Anderson was represented by the Public Defender’s Office. During this critical time period, Mr. Anderson's constitutional rights were violated through neglect, suppression of filings, and complete inaction.
Failure to Advocate at First Appearance:
At Mr. Anderson’s bond hearing, the public defender refused to stand and speak on his behalf. The court was never told that:
Mr. Anderson had been law-abiding for over 22 years
He was a mentor to others in his community
He was actively enrolled in college studying logistics
Instead, the attorney told Mr. Anderson to “sit down and be quiet,” and allowed the hearing to move forward with no meaningful representation.
Failure to Investigate the Case:
Over the course of more than a month, the Public Defender’s Office:
Did not file a discovery request
Did not request body cam footage
Did not examine or challenge the inconsistencies in the police report
These are fundamental legal duties required of any competent defense attorney.
Suppression of Defendant's Constitutional Motions:
Mr. Anderson, realizing his defense was being neglected, submitted:
A Faretta motion to represent himself
A motion to compel discovery
A motion to remove the Public Defender from his case
These motions were never submitted to the court or heard. Mr. Anderson’s constitutional right to self-representation was blocked.
Plea Entered Without Evidence:
On April 10th, Mr. Anderson entered a guilty plea. However, his attorney:
Never reviewed the evidence
Never filed discovery
Never examined body cam footage
The Legal Standards That Apply
Under both U.S. Supreme Court and Florida Supreme Court rulings, what happened in Mr. Anderson’s case is unconstitutional:
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984):
A conviction must be reversed if defense counsel’s performance was:
Deficient, meaning they failed to act reasonably; and
Prejudicial, meaning the outcome would likely have been different with competent representation.
In this case, no discovery was filed, no evidence reviewed, and Mr. Anderson’s constitutional rights were ignored. This meets both prongs of Strickland.
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975):
A defendant has a constitutional right to represent themselves. Florida courts are required to consider Faretta motions seriously and promptly. Mr. Anderson’s motion was suppressed entirely.
Florida Standard:
Florida courts have ruled that failure to investigate or review discovery before a plea is ineffective assistance of counsel. An attorney cannot provide meaningful advice when they have not reviewed the evidence, and a plea under these conditions is not knowingly or voluntarily made.
Mr. Anderson has been seperated from his 6 year old son twice based off of this unlawful sentence .This happens everyday in the legal system
Why the Conviction Is Unlawful
Mr. Anderson’s conviction is unlawful because:
His attorney failed to advocate or investigate.
His right to self-representation was denied.
He entered a guilty plea with no knowledge of the evidence against him.
The lawyer never filed for discovery or body cam footage—not even the basics.
Under Strickland and Faretta, this case fails constitutional standards. Under Florida law, no conviction can stand under these conditions.
Mr. Anderson’s right to access the courts has been obstructed at every turn.
Factual Background
Since the onset of his legal proceedings, Mr. Anderson has submitted numerous pro se filings, each raising valid constitutional claims, procedural irregularities, and evidentiary concerns. These filings have included motions, requests for discovery, and statements pointing to due process violations. Importantly, none of Mr. Anderson’s filings have been frivolous—they have directly addressed constitutional defects and included supporting documentation such as witness statements.
Despite these efforts, the court has repeatedly failed to recognize or rule on his filings, issuing only a partial ruling on a single matter while ignoring the rest. In addition, Mr. Anderson has emailed the clerk of court to seek clarity. The clerk, in turn, has contacted the judicial assistants for each judge involved in Mr. Anderson’s case. However, as of today, no action or response has been provided. Mr. Anderson remains in legal limbo.
Worse still, even while Mr. Anderson was incarcerated for a probation violation related to this very case, the court still refused to acknowledge any of his filings. These included witness statements that would have directly exonerated him and supported his claims of innocence. The court did not respond to motions, nor to emails from third parties who attempted to inquire about the status of his filings and constitutional arguments. Despiterepeated efforts by Mr. Anderson and others to bring these issues to the court’s attention, the court continues to detain him without addressing the violations that occurred at the beginning of these proceedings—violations that go to the heart of due process and a fair trial.
This sustained failure to respond constitutes not only bureaucratic neglect, but a clear and ongoing violation of Mr. Anderson’s constitutional right to access the courts.
Denial of Access to the Court – A Violation of Due ProcessThe right to access the courts is fundamental and well-established in constitutional law. The U.S. Supreme Court in Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977), held that:
“The fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts requires prison authorities to assist inmates in the preparation and filing of meaningful legal papers...”
This right is not limited to physical access—it includes the right to meaningful consideration of claims that challenge one’s conviction or incarceration.
In Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996), the Court clarified that this right is violated when an inmate is hindered from pursuing a non-frivolous legal claim related to their sentence or confinement. The Court emphasized that:
“The tools it requires to be provided are those that the inmates need in order to attack their sentences, directly or collaterally…”
Earlier, in Ex parte Hull, 312 U.S. 546 (1941), the Court ruled that:
“The state and its officers may not abridge or impair an inmate’s right to apply to a federal court for a writ of habeas corpus.”
Additionally, the Eleventh Circuit, which governs Florida, has recognized that failure to rule on inmate motions or engage with constitutional claims may amount to a due process violation. See Wilson v. Blankenship, 163 F.3d 1284, 1290–91 (11th Cir. 1998).
Legal Standard and Case Law
Application to Mr. Anderson’s Case
Mr. Anderson’s filings include compelling evidence and constitutional claims that, if heard, could alter the outcome of his case. These include claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, suppressed discovery, and witness statements offering exonerating testimony. The court’s repeated refusal to acknowledge or address these filings—despite being notified through official and informal channels—effectively blocks Mr. Anderson from challenging the legal foundation of his detention.
The court’s inaction during Mr. Anderson’s incarceration for a probation violation is especially egregious, as it resulted in the continued loss of liberty while key evidence of his innocence went unreviewed. No court has the constitutional authority to indefinitely ignore valid legal claims while continuing to detain the individual raising them.
We need your consent to load the translations
We use a third-party service to translate the website content that may collect data about your activity. Please review the details in the privacy policy and accept the service to view the translations.