ROBERT LEE WEAVER, 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.
Robert Lee Weaver appeals his conviction for robbery with a firearm and sentences as a prison releasee reoffender and habitual violent felony offender. The court affirmed the conviction and prison releasee reoffender sentence but reversed the habitual violent felony offender sentence based on the controlling decision in Walls v. State.
The court affirmed the robbery conviction and the prison releasee reoffender sentence. The court reversed the habitual violent felony offender sentence based on Walls v. State, finding that the trial court properly allowed self-representation in compliance with Faretta requirements.
[1] A trial court's decision to permit a defendant to represent himself is entitled to great weight and will be affirmed on review if supported by competent substantial evide…
[2] A defendant's waiver of the right to counsel is knowing and intelligent if the defendant understands the right and voluntarily relinquishes it.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“the trial court's decision regarding self-representation 'is entitled to great weight and will be affirmed on review if supported by competent substantial evidence'”
Establishes the standard of review for trial court decisions on self-representation, citing Potts v. State
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was convicted of robbery with a firearm. He was subsequently sentenced to life in prison as a prison releasee reoffender and as a habitual v…
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 Prison Releasee Reoffender Act cases and more on FLexlaw
WEBSTER, J.
In this direct criminal appeal, appellant seeks review of his conviction for robbery with a firearm, and his sentences to life in prison as a-prison releasee reoffender and an habitual violent felony 'offender. We reverse the habitual violent felony offender sentence. In all other respects, we affirm.
Appellant first argues that his conviction must be set aside because he was permitted to represent himself. We disagree. The record reveals that the trial court exercised admirable composure in dealing with appellant. It reveals, further, that the trial court complied fully with the requirements of Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975). There is ample evidence in the record to support the trial court’s decision to permit appellant to represent himself, including the results of an evaluation performed by mental health professionals regarding appellant’s competence to proceed. See Potts v. State, 718 So. 2d 757, 759 (Fla.1998) (the trial court’s decision regarding self-representation “is entitled to great weight and will be affirmed on review if supported by competent substantial evidence”). It is apparent from the record that appellant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel, and that he did not intend to rescind that waiver when he subsequently agreed to permit stand-by counsel to conduct portions of the trial.
Appellant next challenges his life sentence, as a prison releasee reoffender. He argues that the Prison Releasee Reoffen-der Punishment Act, codified as section 775.082(8), Florida Statutes (1997), is unconstitutional in a number of respects. At oral argument, however, counsel conceded that this argument is now foreclosed by the recent decision in State v. Cotton, 25 Fla. L. Weekly S463, — So. 2d -, 2000 WL 766521 (Fla. June 15, 2000). We agree.
Finally, we reverse appellant’s habitual violent felony offender sentence based on Walls v. State, 765 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).
Appellant’s conviction and sentence as a prison releasee reoffender are affirmed. The habitual violent felony offender sentence is reverséd.
AFFIRMED IN PART, AND REVERSED IN PART.
KAHN and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Weaver v. State, 764 So. 2d 914 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Weaver v. State, 764 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Weaver v. State, 764 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). KAHN, WEBSTER and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., CONCUR.…
-
Weaver v. State, 764 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…, 449 So. 2d 253, 258 (Fla.1984) (“defendants who without good cause refuse appointed counsel but do not. pro vide their own counsel are presumed to be exercising their right to self-representation”). The records in this case and in Weaver v. State, 764 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000), reveal that the trial court complied fully with the requirements of Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975). See Stark v. Frayer, 67 So. 2d 237 (Fla.1953) (an appellate court may take judicial n…
-
Manning v. State, 767 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…PER CURIAM. Appellant raises three issues on appeal. We find one to have merit. We reverse appellant’s habitual felony offender sentence based on Walls v. State, 765 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000), and Weaver v. State, 764 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). In all other respects, we affirm. BARFIELD, C.J., and BOOTH, J., concur; WOLF, J., specially concurring with written opinion.…
Authorities Cited
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1975)
- Potts v. State, 718 So. 2d 757 (Fla. 1998)
- Walls v. State, 765 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)