TIMOTHY EUGENE ALEXANDER, JR., 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.
Timothy Eugene Alexander, Jr. appeals his conviction for resisting an officer with violence and criminal mischief after representing himself at trial. The appellate court affirms the conviction but vacates the sentences and remands for resentencing because the trial court failed to renew the offer of counsel before the sentencing hearing, which constitutes per se reversible error.
The trial court's failure to renew the offer of counsel at the sentencing hearing constitutes per se reversible error requiring resentencing. The sentences are therefore vacated and the case remanded for resentencing. The conviction itself is affirmed.
[1] A trial court must renew the offer of assistance of counsel at each subsequent critical stage of the proceedings after a defendant has waived counsel.
[2] Sentencing is a critical stage of a criminal proceeding.
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“If a waiver of counsel is accepted at any stage of the proceedings, the offer of assistance of counsel must be renewed by the court at each subsequent critical stage of the proceedings, and it is well settled that sentencing is a critical stage.”
Establishes the legal requirement that courts must renew counsel offers at critical stages including sentencing
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAlexander was in custody in Hendry County jail when he complained of chest pains. After EMS determined he did not need hospitalization, he refused to …
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
Timothy Eugene Alexander, Jr., appeals the judgment and sentences rendered after a jury found him guilty of resisting an officer with violence and criminal mischief. Mr. Alexander represented himself at trial and at the subsequent sentencing hearing. Because the trial court failed to renew the offer of assistance of counsel before sentencing Mr. Alexander, we vacate the sen-tenees and remand for resentencing. As to the remaining issues raised by Mr. Alexander, we find no reversible error and affirm.
The charges stem from an incident that occurred while Mr. Alexander was in custody in the Hendry County jail. Mr. Alexander was examined by EMS personnel after complaining of chest pains, and it was determined that Mr. Alexander did not need to be transported to the hospital. Mr. Alexander was told to return to his cell but he refused, insisting that he needed to go to the hospital. Correctional officers attempted'to escort him to his cell, but he did not cooperate. The situation escalated when Mr. Alexander struggled against the officers’ efforts to carry him to his cell, resulting in charges of resisting an officer with violence and criminal mischief.
Mr. Alexander elected to represent himself at trial following a Faretta1 inquiry. At the conclusion of the trial but' prior to sentencing, Mr. Alexander stated that he no longer wished to represent himself. The trial judge instructed the clerk to prepare an order “appointing counsel for Mr. Alexander. He has apparently now indicated that he.would like to have counsel on the remainder of his cases.” Mr. .Alexander had multiple cases pending at the time. It appears that the trial court may have understood Mr. Alexander’s comment to apply only to his other cases, though the statement was not limited or qualified. A sentencing hearing took place on March 4, 2016. Mr. Alexander was not represented at that hearing,2 nor was he offered the assistance of counsel.
Once a defendant chooses to represent himself, the trial court must eon-*806duct a colloquy to ensure that the defendant is making a knowing and voluntary waiver' of counsel. Aguirre-Jarquin v. State, 9 So.3d 593, 602 (Fla. 2009). If a waiver of counsel is.accepted"at any stage of the proceedings, the offer of assistance of counsel must be renewed by the court at each subsequent critical stage of the.proceedings, and it is well settled that sentencing is a critical stage. Beard v. State, 751 So.2d 61, 62 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (“Sentencing is a critical stage of a criminal proceeding, and a trial court must renew the offer of counsel even, if the defendant has previously waived counsel.”); see also Ingraham v. State, 32 So.3d 761, 768-69 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). “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." Brooks v. State, 180 So.3d 1094, 1096 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (quoting Howard v. State, 147 So.3d 1040, 1043 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)).
A sentencing hearing was held on March 4, 2016, and Mr. Alexander again appeared pro se. The trial court was required to renew the offer of counsel prior to proceeding with sentencing, and the trial court’s failure to do so amounts to per se error requiring resentencing.
■ Judgment affirmed; sentences vacated; case remanded.
CRENSHAW and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Johnson v. State, 255 So. 3d 934 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)
-
Murray v. State, 265 So. 3d 723 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)…tical stage of the proceedings during which the defendant is entitled to counsel." Sanders v. State, 210 So. 3d 98, 100 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). And it is well settled that sentencing is also a critical stage of the proceedings. Alexander v. State, 224 So. 3d 804, 806 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (citing Beard v. State, 751 So. 2d 61, 62 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), for the statement that "[s]entencing is a critical stage of a criminal proceeding, and a trial court must renew the offer of counsel even if the defendant has p…
-
Doyle L. Sammons v. State, 2017 WL 836933 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)…nt appears without counsel."). Sentencing is a critical stage of the proceedings, and a trial court must renew the offer of counsel at the sentencing stage even if the defendant has previously waived counsel at other stages. Alexander v. State, 224 So. 3d 804, 806 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017); Beard v. State, 751 So. 2d 61, 62 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Travis v. State, 969 So. 2d 532, 533 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). Thus, the trial court's failure to renew the offer of assistance of counsel prior to proceeding with sentenc…
Authorities Cited
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1975)
- Clemente Javier Aguirre-Jarquin v. State, 9 So. 3d 593 (Fla. 2009)
- Brooks v. State, 180 So. 3d 1094 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)
- Beard v. State, 751 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- Ingraham v. State, 32 So. 3d 761 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)
- Howard v. State, 147 So. 3d 1040 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)