J.B., A JUVENILE, 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 the trial court erred by failing to adequately advise the appellant of the disadvantages of self-representation and the possible sentencing dispositions before accepting his waiver of counsel.
Appellant pleaded nolo contendere to trespass and petit theft. At the disposition hearing, he waived his right to counsel without being fully advised …
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 Right To Self-Representation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, J.B., was represented by counsel when he entered a plea of nolo contende-re to charges of trespass and petit theft. However, at the disposition hearing, appellant waived his right to counsel prior to being adjudicated delinquent.
During a brief colloquy the court offered appellant a lawyer free of charge and informed him of the difficulties of appealing from any judgment or sentence. However, appellant was not advised of the disadvantages of self-representation and the possible sentencing dispositions which spanned from a withhold of adjudication to secure detention.
Appellant asserts that the trial court failed to advise him of the disadvantages of self-representation before accepting his waiver of counsel at the disposition hearing and the possible disposition alternatives the court could impose including the fact that he could be adjudicated delinquent and placed in secure detention. Moore v. State, 615 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Taylor v. State, 610 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Smith v. State, 549 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); see also K.M. v. State, 448 So. 2d 1124, 1125 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Failure to conduct a proper inquiry is not subject to harmless error analysis. State v. Young, 626 So. 2d 655, 657 (Fla.1993).
Based upon the State’s proper confession of error, we reverse and remand for a new disposition hearing. Upon remand, appellant can waive counsel upon knowledge of the disadvantages of self-representation and the possible dispositions or procéed with appointed counsel. Accordingly, it is unnecessary to address the other issues raised by appellant.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kukral v. George D. Mekras, M.D., 679 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 1996)…ANSTEAD, Justice. We have for review Kukral v. Mekras, 647 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994), which expressly and directly conflicts with the opinion in Stebilla v. Mussallem, 595 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 604 So. 2d 487 (Fla.1992). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. We quash Kukral and a…1 / 2
-
Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General re the Medical Liability Claimant's Compensation Amendment, 880 So. 2d 675 (Fla. 2004)…sky v. Hickox, 721 So. 2d 419, 420 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (affirming dismissal of claim for failing to file corroborating expert affidavit and failure to conduct reasonable presuit investigation [*684] before filing notice of intent); Kukral v. Mekras, 647 So. 2d 849, 850-51 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (affirming dismissal of claim and holding no reasonable investigation was conducted), quashed, 679 So. 2d 278 (Fla.1996); Archer v. Maddux, 645 So. 2d 544, 547 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (affirming dismissal of claim for failure…
-
Popps v. Popps, 806 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…ll compliance with presuit procedures, and the trial court dismissed, the effect of which was to permanently bar plaintiffs claim because the statute of limitations had run. The third district, sitting en banc, affirmed with a bare majority. Kukral, 647 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). The Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that, although the presuit screening statute must be enforced, a litigant’s constitutional right of access to the courts must also be preserved. Kukral, 679 So. 2d at 284. The court cit…
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
- State v. Young, 626 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 1993)
- Taylor v. State, 610 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- K.M. v. State, 448 So. 2d 1124 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Smith v. State, 549 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Moore v. State, 615 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)