JAMES C. MARSHALL, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
The court held that the defendant's requests for self-representation were equivocal and did not entitle him to a Faretta hearing, nor did the trial court abuse its discretion in refusing to discharge counsel.
James C. Marshall was convicted of second-degree murder. He appealed, arguing the trial court erred by not conducting a proper Faretta hearing regardi…
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 Discharge Of Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
On Motion for Rehearing
We grant James C. Marshall’s motion for rehearing, withdraw our previously rendered per curiam opinion dated March 25, 2009, and substitute the following in its place:
James C. Marshall appeals from his conviction for one count of second degree murder. We affirm.
We address only the claim that the trial court committed reversible error by not conducting a proper Faretta 1 hearing. Based upon our review of the record, Mar-shall’s alleged requests for self-representation were at best equivocal; he was not *812entitled to an inquiry on the subject of self-representation under Faretta. See Rios v. State, 696 So.2d 469 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (holding that if court-appointed counsel is found, after a proper Nelson inquiry,2 to be rendering effective assistance and the defendant insists that he still wants to discharge him or her, then a Faretta hearing is in order); accord Davi-la v. State, 829 So.2d 995 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (finding that because there was no unequivocal request for self-representation, the defendant was not entitled to an inquiry on the subject of self-representation under Faretta). Further, we cannot conclude from the record before us that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to permit Marshall to discharge his counsel after holding a proper Nelson hearing. See Rios, 696 So.2d at 471.
We affirm all remaining issues on appeal.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Marshall v. State, 240 So. 3d 111 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)…tion. On direct appeal, Marshall did not challenge the validity of the manslaughter by act jury instruction that had been given at trial. This Court affirmed his conviction with a written opinion issued on July 22, 2009. See Marshall v. State, 15 So. 3d 811 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009). This Court’s mandate issued on August 7, 2009. Marshall thereafter filed a pro se petition for belated discretionary review in the Florida Supreme 2 The trial transcripts reflect that the prosecutor did not make manslaughter…
Authorities Cited
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1975)
- Nelson v. State, 274 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)
- Rosalio Rios v. State, 696 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- State v. Mack, 829 So. 2d 995 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)