Bain v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bain v. State

194 So. 3d 573, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 9941, 2016 WL 3549427

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 29, 2016

DocketNo. 3D14-2946

StatusPublished

This text of 194 So. 3d 573 (Bain v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bain v. State, 194 So. 3d 573, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 9941, 2016 WL 3549427 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ROTHENBERG, J.

The defendant, Franklin Bain, challenges his convictions and sentences for armed sexual battery and false imprisónment- while in possession of a deadly weapon, arguing that the trial court failed to conduct an adequate Faretta¹ hearing before allowing him to discharge his attorney and proceed pro se. Based on the record, which reflects, that the1 trial court conducted a very thorough Faretta inquiry which: (1) addressed.the defendant’s.comprehension ’ of the . offer of assistance of counsel; (2) addressed the defendant’s “capacity to make a knowing and intelligent waiver”; ‘(3) “advise[d] the defendant of the disadvantages and dangers of self-representation; .and (4) demonstrated that the defendant’s “waiver [was] knowing and intelligent,” we affirm. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.111(d)(2).

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ROTHENBERG, J.

The defendant, Franklin Bain, challenges his convictions and sentences for armed sexual battery and false imprisónment- while in possession of a deadly weapon, arguing that the trial court failed to conduct an adequate Faretta¹ hearing before allowing him to discharge his attorney and proceed pro se. Based on the record, which reflects, that the1 trial court conducted a very thorough Faretta inquiry which: (1) addressed.the defendant’s.comprehension ’ of the . offer of assistance of counsel; (2) addressed the defendant’s “capacity to make a knowing and intelligent waiver”; ‘(3) “advise[d] the defendant of the disadvantages and dangers of self-representation; .and (4) demonstrated that the defendant’s “waiver [was] knowing and intelligent,” we affirm. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.111(d)(2).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

194 So. 3d 573, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 9941, 2016 WL 3549427, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bain-v-state-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack