ARICK JUSTIN RINALDO, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
Court denied petitioner's request for hybrid representation (pro se with counsel assistance) and his petition for habeas corpus challenging a six-member jury, holding that Florida law does not permit simultaneous self-representation and counsel assistance, and that a six-member jury does not violate constitutional rights.
A defendant has no constitutional right to hybrid representation combining self-representation with assistance of counsel, and a six-member jury does not violate the Sixth Amendment.
[1] A defendant has no constitutional right to hybrid representation permitting simultaneous self-representation and assistance of counsel.
[2] A six-member jury panel does not violate a defendant's Sixth Amendment rights.
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioner Rinaldo appealed the denial of his pretrial motion to receive unfettered assistance of counsel while acting pro se and filed a consolidated…
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 Jury Composition cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The court sua sponte redesignates the appeal of the denial of appellant’s pretrial motion to receive “unfettered assistance” of counsel while acting pro se as a petition for writ of certiorari and denies the same. See Logan v. State, 846 So. 2d 472, 474-75 (Fla.2003) (recognizing a defendant has no constitutional right “to partially represent himself and, at the same time, be partially represented by counsel”); Brooks v. State, 703 So. 2d 504, 505 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (noting defendant has no constitutional right to combine right of self-representation with right to assistance of counsel).
The consolidated petition for habe-as corpus relief is also denied. Petitioner does not have a constitutional right to a twelve-member jury. See Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 86, 90 S.Ct. 1893, 26 L.Ed.2d 446 (1970) (holding twelve person jury panel “is not a necessary ingredient of ‘trial by jury,’ ” and a six-member panel does not violate defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights); Gibson v. State, 16 Fla. 291, 300 (1877) (finding “a jury composed of six persons is a constitutional jury”). As to the claim that the 1934 amendment to Section 10 of the Declaration of Rights of the Florida Constitution is null and void, that was an amendment to the 1885 constitution. The citizens of Florida enacted a new constitution in 1968, thus superceding any prior constitutional provisions. Petitioner was informed against for the crimes for which he is being held pursuant to Article I, Section 15(a) of the Florida Constitution.
WARNER, STEVENSON and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (U.S. 1970)
- Logan v. State, 846 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 2003)
- Gibson v. State, 16 Fla. 291 (Fla. 1877)
- King Brooks v. State, 703 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)