JAMES EDWARD JONES, 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.
James Edward Jones, representing himself at trial, was convicted of strong-armed robbery by jury verdict. He appealed pro se raising 10 points, all of which the court affirmed, while noting that his self-representation likely precluded him from introducing certain evidence that a knowledgeable attorney could have admitted.
The court affirmed all issues raised. The exclusion of evidence regarding remote prior convictions was proper discretion under Florida statute, and the state's comments did not constitute fundamental error. Additionally, Jones failed to preserve potential errors by not making contemporaneous and specific objections, as would have been done by a competent attorney.
[1] A defendant electing to represent themselves pro se may be precluded from introducing evidence that a knowledgeable attorney might have admitted.
[2] A defendant seeking to question a witness about prior felony convictions must lay a proper predicate, which may include specifying the time frame of the convictions.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“While we fully recognize the right of criminal defendants to represent themselves at trial, as this court noted in Grant v. State, No. 4D99-3578, — So.2d -, 2000 WL 668923 (Fla. 4th DCA May 24, 2000), in rejecting representation such defendants may "be shooting themselves in the foot."”
The court acknowledges the constitutional right to self-representation while cautioning about its practical consequences and noting that proceeding pro se may disadvantage a defendant's case.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJones was charged with and tried for strong-armed robbery. He elected to represent himself after a valid Faretta hearing. At trial, the court refused …
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 Admissibility Of Prior Felony Convictions cases and more on FLexlaw
POLEN, J.
Following a thorough and valid Faretta1 hearing, James Edward Jones represented himself at trial and was convicted by a jury of strong-armed robbery, as charged. He then filed this pro se appeal in which he raises 10 points. Although we affirm as to all issues raised, we write only to note how Jones’ election to forego representation by counsel may have effectively precluded him from introducing into evidence certain matters that a knowledgeable attorney may have been able to get admitted.
Specifically, the court would not allow Jones to question the victim as to whether he (the victim) had ever been convicted of a felony, holding that Jones must have certified copies of any convictions before the question could be posed. Jones did not specify that he wanted to ask the victim only about such crimes committed within the previous 10 years. Rather, Jones’ proffer referred to all crimes for which the victim had been either arrested or convicted, some of which were almost 30 years old. Had Jones tailored his request, and/or proffered that the questions were relevant to show the victim may have made a plea agreement or other deal with the state, see § 90.608(2), Fla. Stat. (1997), Livingston v. State, 678 So. 2d 895, 898 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), he would have preserved for appeal the propriety of the court’s denial of such evidence. Nevertheless, because his request encompassed some crimes so remote in time, we must affirm the court’s discretion in limiting his examination. See § 90.610(1), Fla. Stat. (1997).
In like vein, he maintains that certain comments made by the state in closing argument constitute fundamental error. While we hold that such comments do not rise to the level of fundamental error, we cannot speculate as to what the outcome would have been had contemporaneous and specific objections to such comments been made. Unlike Jones, a knowledgeable attorney would have known that many of these comments were objectionable and, thus, would have preserved for review any such errors by so objecting.
While we fully recognize the right of criminal defendants to represent themselves at trial,2 as this court noted in Grant v. State, No. 4D99-3578, — So. 2d -, 2000 WL 668923 (Fla. 4th DCA May 24, 2000), in rejecting representation such defendants may “be shooting themselves in the foot.”
AFFIRMED.
KLEIN and HAZOURI, JJ., concur. . Faretta v. California, 422 U.'S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975).
. There is no concomitant right to self-representation on appeal. Martinez v. Court of Appeal of California, 528 U.S. 152, 120 S.Ct. 684, 145 L.Ed.2d 597 (2000); Hill v. State, 656 So. 2d 1271 (Fla.1995).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Robinson v. State, 766 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…Cal.App. 2 Dist.1998), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 120 S.Ct. 931, 145 L.Ed.2d 811 (2000). 8. While the appellate court apparently retains discretion to permit self-representation, see Grant v. State, 2000 WL 668923 at *2, — So. 2d at -; Jones v. State, 765 So. 2d 767 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), the Motion to Withdraw which is ' before the Court fails to establish a disabling ethical conflict between appellant and the Office of the Public Defender. We therefore deny the public defender’s motion to withdraw. In accordan…
-
McKiver v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr., 991 F.3d 1357 (11th Cir. 2021)…s. Consequently, Florida law did not support admitting these convictions for impeachment purposes. In analogous cases, Florida courts have affirmed trial courts' refusal to allow convictions like these to be used for impeachment. See Jones v. State, 765 So.2d 767, 767–68 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000) (affirming the trial court's discretion in refusing to admit a nearly 30-year-old conviction); City of Miami v. Ross, 695 So.2d 486, 488 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997) (concluding that the trial court did not abuse its…
Authorities Cited
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1975)
- Martinez v. Court of Appeal of Cal., 528 U.S. 152 (U.S. 2000)
- Livingston v. State, 678 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Hill v. State, 656 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 1995)