DWIGHT LORELL TROUTMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
SALCINES, Judge.
Dwight Lorrell Troutman appeals his convictions for sale or delivery and possession of cocaine. We affirm without comment except to note that one issue he raised involved the sufficiency of the Far-etta
inquiry regarding the warnings of the disadvantages and dangers of self-representation. Although we find the inquiry sufficient in the present case, we commend, to trial judges, the comments to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.111 which provide an excellent colloquy which can be followed when a Faretta inquiry is implicated.
Affirmed.
PARKER, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL, MONTEREY, (Senior) Judge, concur. . Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Pitts, 936 So. 2d 1111 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…ch is not ordinarily the position of a person in custody. He “was never told that he had to go to the [substation], and he never indicated that he did not want to go.” Cillo v. State, 849 So. 2d 353, 355 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); see also Bedoya v. State, 779 So. 2d 574, 579 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). Although the fact that the officers came to Pitts’ apartment in the early morning hours suggests an urgency in their mission, such an impression of urgency did not in itself subject Pitts to a restraint on his freedom. The…
-
Cillo v. State, 849 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…onded in the affirmative. Therefore, the manner in which the detectives summoned Mr. Cilio for questioning did not suggest that he was “significantly deprived of his freedom of action.” Beheler, 463 U.S. at 1123, 103 S.Ct. 3517. See Bedoya v. State, 779 So. 2d 574, 579 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (holding that appellant was not in custody where police gave him a ride to police station for interview and had incriminating evidence against him). Regarding the second factor in Ramirez, the questioning in the case at bar…
-
Snead v. State, 913 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…’s position would feel a restraint on his or her freedom of movement. In other words, a reasonable person in the position of the person being interviewed would not feel free to leave or to terminate an encounter with the police. See Bedoya v. State, 779 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 797 So. 2d 584 (Fla.2001). A trial court should consider four factors in determining whether an interrogation is custodial: (1) the manner in which police summon the suspect for questioning; (2) the purpose, place, and…
Previewing 3 of 10 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)