ERIC LAVONE PERRY A/K/A ERICK LAVONE PERRY, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed Perry's drug convictions because the trial court failed to ensure a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of counsel before allowing him to proceed pro se at a suppression hearing, a critical stage of proceedings.
A trial court's failure to conduct a proper Faretta hearing and obtain a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of counsel before allowing a defendant to proceed pro se at a critical stage constitutes per se reversible error.
[1] A trial court's failure to conduct a Faretta hearing and obtain a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of counsel before allowing a defendant to proceed pro se at a…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Presuming waiver from a silent record is impermissible.”
The court cited Lawson v. State for the principle that a proper waiver of counsel cannot be presumed without an affirmative record.
Eric Perry was convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to sell, driving while license suspended, and use of paraphernalia to transport drugs. P…
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 Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw
Eric Perry appeals his convictions for possession of cocaine with intent to sell, driving while license suspended, and use of paraphernalia to transport drugs. We conclude that the trial court erred by allowing Perry to proceed pro se in a suppression hearing without ensuring that his waiver of counsel was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary as required by Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 96 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial.
As the State acknowledges on appeal, there is no record of a proper waiver of counsel before Perry acted pro se in the hearing on his motion to suppress. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.111(d)(4) (requiring in-court waiver of counsel to be of record). A proper waiver cannot be presumed. Lawson v. State, 231 So.2d 205, 209 (Fla.1970) (“Presuming waiver from a silent record is impermissible.” (citing King v. State, 157 So.2d 440 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963))). And a suppression hearing is a critical stage of the proceedings. Wilson v. State, 76 So.3d 1085, 1089 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). “A trial court’s failure to conduct a Faretta hearing at a critical stage of the criminal proceedings constitutes per se reversible error.” Id. at 1088 (citing Tennis v. State, 997 So.2d .375, 379 (Fla.2008)).
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
SILBERMAN and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1975)
- King v. State, 157 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- Reuel Lawson v. State, 231 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 1970)
- Tajhon Roderick Wilson v. State, 76 So. 3d 1085 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)