Raul A. Campoverde v. State of Florida

── Raul A. Campoverde v. State of Florida ── Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida Date: April 24, 2026 Category: General SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________ Case No. 6D2026-0074 Lower Tribunal No. 2023-MM-000383 _____________________________ RAUL A. CAMPOVERDE, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. _____________________________ Appeal from the County Court for Orange County. Faye L. Allen, Judge. April 24, 2026 BROWNLEE, J. A criminal defendant has a constitutional right to appeal anchored in article V, section 4(b)(1) of the Florida Constitution. Likewise, a criminal defendant has the right to counsel, including the right to counsel on appeal. The question we face today is whether a defendant may trigger our jurisdiction by filing a pro se notice of appeal while represented by counsel. In concluding the defendant cannot, we trace the relevant holdings of the Florida Supreme Court, follow the road paved by our sister courts, and dismiss this case.  Raul Campoverde filed a pro se notice of appeal, seeking to challenge the final judgment and sentence entered against him. Because Campoverde filed his notice of appeal pro se, this court directed the clerk of the lower tribunal to file a document identifying the attorney who represented Campoverde at the time the trial court entered its judgment and sentence, or to certify that Campoverde was unrepresented throughout the trial court proceedings. The clerk of the lower tribunal responded that Campoverde was indeed represented by counsel in the trial court. Upon receiving the clerk’s response, this court directed Campoverde’s trial counsel to show cause why the notice of appeal should not be stricken as a nullity because Campoverde filed it pro se while represented by counsel. Trial counsel responded that he was a private attorney, retained to represent Campoverde in the trial court only, and that he was not retained to represent Campoverde on appeal. Counsel further explained Campoverde did not consult with him before filing the notice of appeal, that he is not adopting the notice, and that the notice of appeal is a “legal nullity” under Logan v. State, 846 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 2003). Whether Campoverde’s pro se notice of appeal is a legal nullity, or whether it was sufficient to trigger our jurisdiction is something we must decide for ourselves. See Shassian v. Riverwalk Park, LLC, 365 So. 3d 484, 486 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023) (“We have an independent duty . . . to determine our jurisdiction.” (citations omitted)). 2  At the outset, we note that the Florida Constitution confers jurisdiction on this court “to hear appeals, that may be taken as a matter of right, from final judgments or orders of trial courts, including those entered on review of administrative action, not directly appealable to the supreme court or a circuit court.” Art. V, § 4(b)(1), Fla. Const. According to the Florida Supreme Court, this provision “affords criminal defendants a constitutional right to an appeal.” McFadden v. State, 177 So. 3d 562, 566 (Fla. 2015). But that right is not unfettered, and reasonable conditions have been placed upon it. See § 924.051(8), Fla. Stat. (“It is the intent of the Legislature that all terms and conditions of direct appeal . . . be strictly enforced, including the application of procedural bars, to ensure that all claims of error are raised and resolved at the first opportunity. It is also the Legislature’s intent that all procedural bars to direct appeal and collateral review be fully enforced by the courts of this state.”).