DARRELL C. TRAVIS, 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.
Darrell Travis was convicted by jury of multiple offenses including burglary and criminal mischief. The court affirmed his convictions but reversed his sentences because the trial court failed to renew its offer of court-appointed counsel at the sentencing phase, a critical stage of the criminal proceeding.
The trial court adequately apprised Travis of his Faretta rights prior to commencement of trial, and no fundamental error occurred regarding jury instructions. However, because sentencing is a critical stage of criminal proceedings, the failure to renew the offer of counsel at the sentencing phase constitutes reversible error requiring vacatur of the sentence and remand for re-sentencing.
[1] A trial court must renew the offer of assistance of counsel at the commencement of a sentencing hearing, even if the defendant previously waived counsel at other stages o…
[2] Sentencing is a critical stage of a criminal proceeding at which the right to counsel must be afforded.
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“Sentencing is a crucial stage of a criminal proceeding, so that the offer of assistance of counsel must be renewed then, even if the defendant has previously waived counsel at other stages.”
Establishes the legal principle that counsel must be re-offered at sentencing regardless of prior waiver.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTravis was found guilty by jury of two counts of burglary of a conveyance, one count of possession of a burglary tool, one count of resisting an offic…
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 Faretta Inquiry cases and more on FLexlaw
BROWNING, C.J.
A jury found Darrell C. Travis (Appellant) guilty, as charged, of two counts of burglary of a conveyance, one count of possession of a burglary tool, one count of resisting an officer without violence, and two counts of criminal mischief causing damages of $200.00 or less.
The trial court adjudicated him guilty and imposed guidelines sentences. Appellant raises two issues in this appeal.
First, did the trial court comply with the requirements of the federal Sixth Amendment and Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975), and conduct an adequate inquiry, prior to the commencement of the guilt and penalty phases of the trial, to assure that Appellant’s waiver of court-appointed counsel was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent?
Second, did the trial court abuse its discretion by failing to give jury instructions for Category One lesser-included offenses, where no such instructions were requested, and Appellant orally approved the jury instructions given? Having concluded that the trial court adequately apprised Appellant of his rights under Faretta prior to commencement of the trial, and that no fundamental error was shown in the failure to give the jury instructions at issue, we affirm Appellant’s convictions.
However, because the trial court failed to renew the Faretta inquiry before the sentencing, we reverse Appellant’s sentences and remand for re-sentencing in accordance with the requirements of Faretta.
Although the judge who conducted the pretrial Faretta inquiry had assured Appellant that the offer of counsel would be renewed before the penalty phase, the judge who presided over the trial failed to inquire further or to renew the offer of counsel at the commencement of sentencing. Sentencing is a crucial stage of a criminal proceeding, so that the offer of assistance of counsel must be renewed then, even if the defendant has previously waived counsel at other stages. See Parker v. State, 539 So. 2d 1168, 1169 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (holding that trial court’s failure to renew offer of assistance of counsel at sentencing hearing compelled vacating of sentence and remanding for re-sentencing); see also Kepner v. State, 911 So. 2d 1256, 1258 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Beard v. State, 751 So. 2d 61, 62 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Hardy v. State, 655 So. 2d 1245, 1247-48 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995).
Immediately after the dismissal of the jury, the court proceeded with the sentencing process. Even though the end of the guilt phase and the commencement of the penalty phase were not punctuated by a temporal break, sentencing is a separate critical stage, which has a separate function and consequence from the jury trial itself. Because the failure to renew the offer of counsel at the commencement of the sentencing hearing constitutes reversible error, Appellant is entitled to be re-sentenced after a proper Faretta inquiry. See Parker, 539 So. 2d at 1169.
We AFFIRM the convictions, VACATE the sentences, and REMAND for re-sentencing after a proper renewal of the offer of counsel.
BARFIELD and BENTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ingraham v. State, 32 So. 3d 761 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…1 So. 2d 61, 62 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). Accordingly, we must vacate Mr. Ingraham’s sentences and remand for resentencing after a proper Faretta inquiry. Beard, 751 So. 2d at 62; Descault v. State, 20 So. 3d 990, 991 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); Travis v. State, 969 So. 2d 532, 533 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). V. INVESTIGATIVE COSTS Mr. Ingraham argues that the $225 fee imposed on him for “investigative costs” under section 938.27(1), Florida Statutes (2004), should be struck because the State failed to provide any documentatio…
-
Howard v. State, 147 So. 3d 1040 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…DCA 2009). Failure to renew the offer of counsel at a critical stage and conduct a Faretta inquiry if the defendant rejects the renewed offer is per se reversible error. See Cuyler v. State, 131 So. 3d 827, 828 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014); Travis v. State, 969 So. 2d 532, 533 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); Wilson v. State, 947 So. 2d 1225, 1226-27 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). Here, although the trial court repeatedly renewed the offer of counsel at the hearings leading up to final sentencing, it did not do a Faretta inquiry until ju…
-
Descault v. State, 20 So. 3d 990 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…quiry at appellant’s sentencing hearing. “Sentencing is a crucial stage of a criminal proceeding, so that the offer of assistance of counsel must be renewed then, even if the defendant has previously waived counsel at other stages.” Travis v. State, 969 So. 2d 532, 533 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); see also Parker v. State, 539 So. 2d 1168, 1169 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Kepner v. State, 911 So. 2d 1256, 1258 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Beard v. State, 751 So. 2d 61, 62 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Hardy v. State, 655 So. 2d 1245, 1247-48…
Previewing 3 of 8 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)
- Hardy v. State, 655 So. 2d 1245 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Beard v. State, 751 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- Parker v. State, 539 So. 2d 1168 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Sanders v. Union Carbide Corp., 911 So. 2d 1256 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
- Kepner v. State, 911 So. 2d 1256 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)