CURTIS EUGENE SMITH, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
The court held that a defendant's waiver of counsel was not knowing and intelligent because the trial court failed to adequately advise him of the pitfalls and potential sentence for self-representation.
The defendant was convicted of grand theft and sentenced to five years imprisonment. The trial judge questioned the defendant about his education and …
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 Faretta V. California cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant was convicted of grand theft, second-degree, and sentenced to five years imprisonment. Because we cannot conclude from the record that the defendant knowingly and understanding^ waived his right to counsel, we reverse.
The trial judge asked the defendant a number of questions pertaining to his education and life experience. The defendant related that he had successfully represented himself on several previous occasions. This exchange adequately reflected his ability to act pro se. The defendant, however, was not advised of the pitfalls of acting as his own lawyer, Drago v. State, 415 So. 2d 874, 877 (Fla.2d DCA 1982), nor was he advised of the potential sentence he might face if found guilty. Felton v. State, 438 So. 2d 1049 (Fla.3d DCA 1983).
The court’s effort to apprise the defendant of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation consisted solely of the judge’s statement:
Do you understand with a grand theft second degree charge and a strong-arm robbery you’re facing substantial state prison time?
Without adequate warning as to the severity of the charge or its possible penalty, we cannot confirm that the defendant made an “intelligent and understanding choice.” See Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975); DiBartolomeo v. State, 450 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Keene v. State, 420 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), review denied, 430 So. 2d 452 (Fla.1983); Drago v. State, 415 So. 2d at 874; Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.111(d).
Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is reversed, the sentence entered thereon is vacated, and the case remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Taylor v. State, 610 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…A 1992) (defendant “must be made aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation”); Nelson v. State, 601 So. 2d 1251, 1252 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (defendant must be made aware of the “disadvantages of self-representation”); Smith v. State, 549 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (reversible error not to warn defendant of “the pitfalls of acting as his own lawyer” and “the potential sentence he might face if found guilty”); Tucker v. State, 440 So. 2d 60, 62 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), review denied, 447 So. 2d 8…
-
Segal v. State, 920 So. 2d 1279 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…r both of these deficiencies. Reversed. WARNER and HAZOURI, JJ., concur. . Crystal v. State, 616 So. 2d 150 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Vera v. State, 689 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Taylor v. State, 605 So. 2d 958 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Smith v. State, 549 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Haslom v. State, 643 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Baggett v. State, 687 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Hardy v. State, 655 So. 2d 1245 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995).…
-
Taylor v. State, 605 So. 2d 958 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…ce in criminal proceedings. Further, the judge failed to warn Taylor of: the complexity of a jury trial, the dangers of self-representation, and the mandatory minimum sentence. See Cooper v. State, 576 So. 2d 1379 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Smith v. State, 549 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). On the day of trial, the judge did not renew an offer of assistance of counsel. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.111(d)(5). Because the trial judge failed to conduct the necessary inquiries and required Taylor to proceed pro se, we reverse a…
Previewing 3 of 4 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)
- Amado L. Pedroso v. State, 420 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
- Smiley Vincent Keene v. State, 420 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Drago v. State, 415 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
- Miller v. State, 438 So. 2d 1049 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- DiBARTOLOMEO v. State, 450 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)