CARLTON BLACK, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Carlton Black appealed his drug possession convictions, challenging the trial court's outright denial of his request to discharge court-appointed counsel without inquiry, and the admission of character-related testimony about the arrest location. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding both errors were reversible.
The trial court clearly erred in failing to inquire into Black's reasons for discharging his attorney. Additionally, the admission of the objected-to testimony regarding the nature of the arrest location constituted reversible error under established precedent.
[1] A trial court must inquire into the reasons for a defendant's pretrial request to discharge court-appointed counsel.
[2] If a defendant's request to discharge court-appointed counsel is based on a valid reason, the court should appoint substitute counsel.
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“When a defendant makes a pretrial request to discharge court-appointed counsel, the trial court must make an inquiry as to the reasons for the request.”
Establishes the mandatory duty of trial courts to inquire into reasons for discharge requests before denying them.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCarlton Black was charged with possession of cocaine and possession of drug paraphernalia. Before trial, Black requested to discharge his court-appoin…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Sixth Amendment Right To Self-Representation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Prior to trial on charges of possession of cocaine and possession of drug paraphernalia, appellant attempted to discharge his private, court-appointed counsel. Upon being so advised, the trial court stated, “Motion denied.” After some discussion on another matter, defense counsel stated, “Mr. Black, again, asked me to relate to the Court that he wants me off the case.” The court replied, “Forget it.”
When a defendant makes a pretrial request to discharge court-appointed counsel, the trial court must make an inquiry as to the reasons for the request. Williams v. State, 427 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Nelson v. State, 274 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). If the court finds that a valid reason for discharge exists, it should appoint substitute counsel. Williams; Nelson. If no valid reasons appear or if the defendant does not state a reason, the trial court should so state on the record and advise the defendant that if he discharges his appointed counsel the state is not required to appoint a substitute. Williams; Nelson.
Here, the trial court clearly erred in failing to make inquiry as to appellant’s reasons for requesting discharge of his attorney. We note also that the United States Supreme Court has held, in Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975), that the sixth amendment grants an accused the right to self representation.
We treat another error raised by appellant in order to forestall its repetition upon retrial. Over defense counsel’s objection, a police officer testified that on the day in question he and his partner had been watching several areas of drug activity called “crack houses,” and in particular the “crack house” where appellant was arrested, which was a vacant, partially-built garage where the officers had previously made numerous arrests. Also over defense counsel’s objection, the officer testified that no “normal people” lived in the garage, although it was used by “vagrants or people like that.” The trial court noted defense counsel’s “standing objection” to such testimony, and thereafter, another officer testified that the vacant garage was a “base house” where he had made numerous past arrests.
Appellant contends, relying on Beneby v. State, 354 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 359 So. 2d 1220 (Fla.1978), and Lockett v. State, 527 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988), that the admission of the objected-to testimony constituted reversible error. We agree and would reverse on this point as well. See Buckhann v. State, 356 So. 2d 1327 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). We reverse and remand for a new trial.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
HERSEY, C.J., and STONE and WARNER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gillion v. State, 573 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 1991)…an be expected to come prepared to answer. (Citations omitted.) Even the state candidly and correctly concedes that in Florida, introducing the fact that a defendant was arrested in a high-crime area is reversible error. See, e.g., Black v. State, 545 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Beneby v. State, 354 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 359 So. 2d [*813] 1220 (Fla.1978). While the majority opinion distinguishes Beneby on the basis that Beneby dealt with testimony regarding the reputation of an area ra…
-
Johnson v. State, 559 So. 2d 729 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…dominantly black neighborhood, but very well known for high school narcotics, prostitution to robberies and burglaries.” This type of guilt by association trial tactic has been universally condemned as constituting reversible error. Black v. State, 545 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Beneby v. State, 354 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied., 359 So. 2d 1220 (Fla.1978); Buckann v. State, 356 So. 2d 1327 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). See also Lockett v. State, 527 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). We so hold and reve…
-
Goodwin v. State, 721 So. 2d 728 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…appellant has failed to demonstrate such an error. We distinguish Wheeler v. State, 690 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), Sherrod v. State, 582 So. 2d 814 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), Hutchinson v. State, 580 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), Black v. State, 545 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), and Beneby v. State, 354 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), in which “bad neighborhood” comments combined with either improper prosecutorial remarks or additional bad neighborhood testimony from other witnesses constituted reversibl…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1975)
- Nelson v. State, 274 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)
- Williams v. State, 427 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Beneby v. State, 354 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Buckhann v. State, 356 So. 2d 1327 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Oliveira v. State, 527 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)