LOOR
v.
STATE
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.
A trial court's order denying a criminal defendant's request to represent himself after a Faretta hearing is not an appealable interlocutory order, and the appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review such an order.
[1] A trial court's order denying a criminal defendant's request to represent himself following a Faretta competency hearing is a non-final order that does not fall within an…
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“A criminal defendant generally does not have the right to an interlocutory appeal.”
Discussion of applicable law regarding appealability of non-final orders in criminal cases.
Defendant Loor filed a pro se Notice of Waiver of Counsel, which the trial court denied after a Faretta hearing, finding the defendant was not compete…
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
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed March 7, 2018. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D14-1245 Lower Tribunal No. 10-27774
________________
Jesse Loor,
Appellant,
vs.
The State of Florida,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Milton Hirsch, Judge.
Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Jeffrey Paul DeSousa, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jill D. Kramer, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before ROTHENBERG, C.J., and SUAREZ, and LOGUE, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
ON MOTION TO VACATE OPINION FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
We grant the appellant’s motion to vacate opinion for lack of jurisdiction,
vacate the prior per curiam affirmance issued on April 15, 2015, and issue the following opinion in its stead. See Del Risco v. State, 203 So. 3d 909 (Fla. 3d
DCA 2016), vacating for lack of jurisdiction, 207 So. 3d 886 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (unpublished table decision).
Before trial, the defendant filed a pro se Notice of Waiver of Counsel that the trial court subsequently denied after a Faretta hearing. See Faretta v.
California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975). Specifically, the trial court found that the defendant was not competent to conduct his own defense at trial, and the defendant filed a pro se notice of appeal of that order. Counsel for the defendant was unaware of the appeal.
A criminal defendant generally does not have the right to an interlocutory appeal. Lopez v. State, 638 So. 2d 931, 932 (Fla. 1994). The trial court’s order at issue here “does not fall within any of the enumerated categories of appealable non-final orders found in Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130 or 9.140(b).”
Accordingly, this Court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the defendant’s interlocutory appeal. See Baez v. State, 985 So. 2d 1223, 1224 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); see also
Rentas v. State, 133 So. 3d 1117, 1117 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (“[The defendant] is not entitled to nonfinal review of the trial court’s ruling on the self-representation issue.”). We therefore vacate our decision of April 15, 2015.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1975)
- Lopez v. State, 638 So. 2d 931 (Fla. 1994)
- Goodman v. Fla. Dep't of Law Enf't, 203 So. 3d 909 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)
- Rentas v. State, 133 So. 3d 1117 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)
- del Risco v. State, 203 So. 3d 909 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)
- Baez v. State, 985 So. 2d 1223 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)
- Estable v. State, 985 So. 2d 1223 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)