DARRELL PUGH, 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 Pugh, proceeding pro se, entered a plea agreement and was found in violation of probation. At his sentencing hearing, the trial court failed to renew its offer of counsel before sentencing, which constitutes per se reversible error requiring a new sentencing hearing with a proper counsel offer.
A trial court's failure to renew an offer of counsel prior to sentencing, a crucial stage of criminal proceedings, constitutes per se reversible error that cannot be subject to harmless error analysis. The sentence must be reversed and the case remanded for a new sentencing hearing with a proper counsel offer.
[1] A criminal defendant is entitled to the assistance of counsel at each crucial stage of the proceedings.
[2] Sentencing is a critical stage of a criminal proceeding at which a renewed offer of counsel must be made to a pro se defendant.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Once charged, a criminal defendant is entitled to decide at each "crucial stage" of the proceedings whether he or she would prefer the assistance of counsel.”
Establishes the fundamental right to counsel decision-making at critical stages of criminal proceedings.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePugh, acting pro se after a Faretta inquiry, pleaded guilty to seven felony counts of unlawful acceptance of advance fees. The Department of Correctio…
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
Following a thorough Faretta1 inquiry by the trial court, Darrell Pugh, proceeding pro se, entered a plea agreement to a probationary sentence on seven felony counts of unlawful acceptance of advance fees in violation of section 687.141, Florida Statutes (2009). On September 5, 2013, the Department of Corrections filed an amended affidavit of violation of probation, and the circuit court convened an eviden-tiary hearing. The court properly renewed an offer of counsel prior to Mr. Pugh’s violation of probation hearing, which he refused, and the court found him in violation of probation.
The court later convened a sentencing hearing, in which Mr. Pugh continued to represent himself without the presence or assistance of standby counsel. However, the court did not reoffer counsel to Mr. Pugh prior to.his sentencing hearing. As the State concedes, that was error.
Once charged, a criminal defendant is entitled to decide at each “crucial stage” of the proceedings whether he or she would prefer the assistance of counsel. Traylor v. State, 596 So.2d 957, 968 (Fla.1992) (holding that Florida’s constitutional right to choose one’s manner of representation “must apply at least at each crucial stage of the prosecution”); Parker v. State, 137 So.3d 593, 594 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (noting that sentencing is a critical stage of a criminal proceeding that requires a renewed offer of counsel); Ingraham v. State, 32 So.3d 761, 767 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (same). A trial court’s failure, prior to a crucial stage of a criminal proceeding, to either conduct a Faretta hearing or reoffer counsel to a pro se defendant acting without standby counsel constitutes per se reversible error precluding any harmless error analysis. See Tennis v. State, 997 So.2d 375, 379 (Fla.2008) (citing State v. Young, 626 So.2d 655, 657 (Fla.1993)); Monte v. State, 51 So.3d 1196, 1201 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (citing Knight v. State, 770 So.2d 663, 670 (Fla.2000)). Under the circumstances, as the State has conceded, we must reverse Mr. Pugh’s sentence and remand for the circuit court to hold a new violation of probation sentencing hearing, prior to which Mr. Pugh must be offered assistance of counsel.
*531Reversed and remanded with instructions.
CASANUEVA, LaROSE, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Murray v. State, 265 So. 3d 723 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)…See Bergeron v. State, 210 So. 3d 129, 129-30 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016); Parker v. State, 137 So. 3d 593, 594 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014); Serrano v. State, 113 So. 3d 895, 896 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012). The failure to do so is per se reversible error. Pugh v. State, 181 So. 3d 529, 530 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015); see also Alexander, 224 So. 3d at 806 ("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." (quoting Brooks v. S…
Authorities Cited
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1975)
- Traylor v. State, 596 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 1992)
- Gabby Tennis v. State, 997 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 2008)
- State v. Young, 626 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 1993)
- Monte v. State, 51 So. 3d 1196 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)
- Knight v. State, 770 So. 2d 663 (Fla. 2000)
- Ingraham v. State, 32 So. 3d 761 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)
- Parker v. State, 137 So. 3d 593 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)