RAY NORRIS JACKSON, 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.
The trial court erred by failing to inform the appellant of his right to self-representation after he requested to discharge his court-appointed lawyer.
[1] A trial court errs by failing to advise a defendant of their right to self-representation after the defendant expresses dissatisfaction with appointed counsel and request…
[2] A defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a full defense includes the implied right to self-representation.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant questioned his court-appointed attorney's competency. The trial court found no basis for the complaints and informed appellant that substitu…
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
ERVIN, Judge.
Appellant seeks reversal of his conviction and habitual offender sentence imposed for sale and possession of cocaine with intent to sell. We agree with appellant that reversal and remand is necessary because the trial court erred in failing to advise him of his right to represent himself after appellant had asked the court to discharge his court-appointed lawyer; therefore, we do not address the remaining points which relate solely to sentencing errors.
After appellant questioned the competency of his court-appointed attorney, the trial court inquired concerning counsel’s performance, and concluded that there was no basis for appellant’s complaints. Although appellant was informed that should he dismiss his court-appointed counsel, the state would not be required to appoint substitute counsel, appellant was not told that he had the option of self-representation. Rather, appellant was told that it was too late to appoint a substitute attorney, and the trial court stated that there was nothing more that it could do.
The trial court thereupon proceeded to jury selection despite appellant’s continued dissatisfaction with counsel. This was error. To thrust counsel upon a defendant, against his considered wish, violates the logic of the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which guarantees rights necessary to a full defense, including the implied right to self-representation. Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 820-21, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 2533-34, 45 L.Ed.2d 562, 573-74 (1975).
As this court stated in Taylor v. State, 557 So. 2d 138, 143 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), the trial court has a duty to advise a defendant that substitute counsel will not be appointed and that he has the right to represent himself. Such advice is necessary to ensure the defendant’s implied right to self-representation under the sixth amendment. See, e.g., Chiles v. State, 454 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984).
The judgment and sentence are REVERSED and the case REMANDED for further proceedings.
WENTWORTH and WOLF, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Arizona Perkins v. State, 585 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…tiveness of court appointed counsel after appellant moved to replace counsel. We reverse based on Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975); Johnson v. State, 560 So. 2d 1239 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); and Jackson v. State, 572 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). In Johnson, this court held: [W]hen a defendant lets it be known that he wishes to discharge his court-appointed counsel, the trial court should inquire of the defendant as to his reason for requesting discharge. If incompetenc…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1975)
- First OF Ga. Ins. Co. v. Lloyd, 557 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Darma L. Chiles v. State, 454 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)