ARTHUR LEE HUGHES, 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 court affirmed the convictions and sentences but certified a question to the supreme court regarding the trial court's ability to deny self-representation based on concerns about a fair trial.
The appellant requested to represent himself pro se, filing motions to dismiss counsel and pursue a speedy trial discharge. The trial court denied thi…
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 Armed Burglary cases and more on FLexlaw
ALLEN, Judge.
The appellant challenges his convictions and sentences for first degree murder, armed burglary and armed robbery. Although we affirm, we write to address the appellant’s assertion that the trial court erred in denying his unequivocal request to represent himself.
Prior to trial, the appellant filed several pro se motions in an attempt to dismiss his court-appointed counsel and pursue a discharge on the basis of the speedy trial rule. In response to the appellant’s request to represent himself, the trial court inquired about the appellant’s age, education, and ability to conduct his own defense. The court emphasized that the state was seeking the death penalty in his case and that the defendant would have to prepare for a penalty phase should he be convicted of the murder charge. Despite the appellant’s representations that he could handle such a defense, the trial court denied his request, concluding that “there are unusual circumstances which would deprive Mr. Hughes of a fair trial if he were permitted to conduct his own defense.”
Although ample precedent from this court supports the trial court’s ruling, see, e.g., Smith v. State, 444 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), the Second District sitting en banc has recently questioned the “fair trial” standard and concluded that it is inconsistent with the strictures of Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975). We accordingly affirm the convictions and sentences, but certify to the supreme court the same question certified in Bowen v. State, 677 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (en banc):
ONCE A TRIAL COURT HAS DETERMINED THAT A DEFENDANT HAS KNOWINGLY WAIVED HIS OR HER RIGHT TO COUNSEL, MAY THE COURT NONETHELESS REQUIRE THE DEFENDANT TO BE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL BECAUSE OF CONCERN THAT THE DEFENDANT MIGHT BE DEPRIVED OF A FAIR TRIAL IF TRIED WITHOUT SUCH REPRESENTATION?
MICKLE and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hughes v. State, 701 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…ALLEN, Judge. In Hughes v. State, 686 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), we affirmed the appellant’s convictions despite the trial court’s denial of the appellant’s unequivocal request to represent himself. We did so in accordance with precedent from this court holding that the request of a defendant…
-
Hughes v. State, 700 So. 2d 647 (Fla. 1997)…SHAW, Justice. We have for review Hughes v. State, 686 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), wherein the court certified: Once a trial court has determined that a defendant has knowingly waived his or her right to counsel, may the court nonetheless require the defendant to be represented by counsel because of concern…
-
Ollman v. State, 696 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…ntitled to a new Faretta hearing according to the principles expressed in Bowen. Reversed. MINER and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur. . We acknowledge that the trial court may have been correct in applying precedent in this court, see Hughes v. State, 686 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), and that the trial court did not have the benefit of the supreme court’s decision in Bowen at the time of the Faretta hearing in this case.…
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)
- State v. Thompson, 444 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Bowen v. State, 677 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)