GREGG M. HARDEN, 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.
Gregg Harden appeals his conviction for attempted robbery and furnishing false information, arguing the trial court committed reversible error by failing to timely conduct a Faretta hearing after his repeated, unequivocal requests for self-representation. The court reverses and remands for a new trial, holding that the failure to hold a Faretta hearing within a reasonable time after unequivocal self-representation requests constitutes per se reversible error.
The trial court's failure to hold a Faretta hearing within a reasonable time following Harden's initial and subsequent unequivocal requests for self-representation constitutes per se reversible error entitling him to a new trial. Additionally, a pro se demand for speedy trial that has not been adopted by counsel cannot be entertained on the merits because neither the Sixth Amendment nor Florida Constitution provide a right to hybrid representation.
[1] A trial court commits per se reversible error when it fails to conduct a Faretta hearing after a defendant makes unequivocal requests to represent himself.
[2] The right to self-representation applies at any crucial stage in the proceedings.
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“The failure of a trial court to hold a Faretta hearing to determine whether the defendant could represent himself is per se reversible error that entitles a defendant to a new trial.”
Establishes the legal standard that failure to conduct a Faretta hearing after unequivocal requests is automatically reversible error
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHarden filed numerous motions and pleadings waiving his right to counsel and requesting self-representation, with his appointed counsel confirming his…
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 Unequivocal Request For Self-Representation cases and more on FLexlaw
Gregg M. Harden appeals his conviction for two counts of attempted robbery and one count of furnishing false information to a law enforcement officer during an investigation. Because the trial court committed per se reversible error when it failed to conduct a Faretta hearing after Harden made several unequivocal requests to represent himself, we reverse and remand for a new trial. See Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975).
Harden filed numerous motions and pleadings with the trial court waiving his right to counsel and requesting self-representation. Harden’s counsel also confirmed Harden’s desire to represent himself several times during the proceedings. The trial court chose not conduct a Faretta hearing on Harden’s requests, but instead postponed the Faretta hearing until after the discovery process was complete.
Harden also filed multiple motions for speedy trial, notice of expiration motions, and demands for discharge under the Florida Speedy Trial Rule. All of these motions were denied either on the merits or because Harden’s appointed counsel did not adopt them.
On July 5, 2011, sixteen months after his initial request for self-representation, the trial court conducted a Faretta hearing and concluded that Harden was competent to represent himself. Harden represented himself at trial and was convicted on two counts of attempted robbery and one count of furnishing false information to a law enforcement officer during an investigation.
The Sixth Amendment grants a defendant the right to proceed without counsel when he voluntarily and intelligently elects to do so. Faretta, 422 U.S. at 835, 95 S.Ct. 2525. The right to self-representation applies at any crucial stage in the proceedings. See Kearse v. State, 858 So.2d 348 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (holding that the defendant had the right to represent himself during pre-trial suppression hearing).
A defendant’s request for self-representation must be unequivocal. See Tennis v. State, 997 So.2d 375, 378 (Fla.2008). Once a defendant makes an unequivocal request for self-representation, the trial court is obligated to hold a Faret-ta hearing to determine whether the defendant is knowingly and intelligently waiving his right to court-appointed counsel. Id. The failure of a trial court to hold a Faretta hearing to determine whether the defendant could represent himself is per se reversible error that entitles a defendant to a new trial. Id. at 379.
Neither the Sixth Amendment nor the Florida Constitution provide a right to hybrid representation. See Logan v. State, 846 So.2d 472, 474-75 (Fla.2003). Thus, a pro se demand for speedy trial that has not been adopted by the defendant’s counsel cannot be entertained on the merits. Sams v. State, 849 So.2d 1172, 1174 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003).
Harden made several unequivocal requests for self-representation as evidenced by his repeated filings to dismiss his appointed counsel and represent him*628self. After these requests, but prior to the Faretta hearing being held, there were several crucial stages in the proceedings over a period of sixteen months. Each crucial stage presented a missed opportunity for Harden to represent himself Because the trial court failed to hold a Faretta hearing within a reasonable time following Harden’s initial and subsequent unequivocal requests for self-representation it committed per se reversible error. Thus, Harden is entitled to a new trial.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Barrington Deferrell v. State, 199 So. 3d 1056 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…he statute. Failure to Hold a Faretta Hearing “The failure of a trial court to hold a Faretta hearing to determine whether the defendant could represent himself is per se reversible error that entitles a defendant to a new trial.” Harden v. State, 152 So. 3d 626, 627 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (citing Tennis v. State, 997 So. 2d 375, 379 (Fla.2008)). Additionally, “Florida law is clear that a trial court’s failure to hold a Faretta hearing is not subject to a harmless error analysis, and is per se reversible error.…
-
Cornelius v. State, 223 So. 3d 398 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…Templar-O’Brien, 173 So. 3d 1129, 1132 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (“A pro se notice of expiration of speedy trial period and a motion for discharge filed while represented by counsel are nullities, having no legal force or effect.”); Harden v. State, [*402] 152 So. 3d 626, 627 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (“[A] pro se demand for speedy trial that has not been adopted by the defendant’s counsel cannot be entertained on the merits.”); Craven, 955 So. 2d at 1183; Sams, 849 So. 2d at 1174 (holding that the defendant’s pro se deman…
-
State v. Ciaran E. Lachlan Templar-O'Brien, 173 So. 3d 1129 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)…A pro se notice of expiration of speedy trial period and a motion for discharge filed while represented by counsel are nullities, having no legal force or effect. State v. Craven, 955 So. 2d 1182, 1183 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); see also Harden v. State, 152 So. 3d 626, 627 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (“[A] pro se demand for speedy trial that has not been adopted by the defendant’s counsel cannot be entertained on the merits.”). Therefore, not only was the notice not treated as a demand for speedy trial, the pleading was a…
Previewing 3 of 4 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)
- Logan v. State, 846 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 2003)
- Gabby Tennis v. State, 997 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 2008)
- Kearse v. State, 858 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)
- Rodrick Sams v. State, 849 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)