Baker v. State

745 So. 2d 1035, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 13945, 1999 WL 961224
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Baker v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 714 So. 2d 1167
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 22, 1999·No. No. 97-05161·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Kenneth Baker appeals the final judgment after the jury found him guilty of uttering a forged instrument. We affirm because contrary to Baker’s position, the trial court was not required to conduct a full Faretta1 hearing under the circumstances of this case.

Baker was very clear that he wanted to assist his attorney. Faretta only applies when the defendant makes a clear and [1036]*1036unequivocal request for self-representation. See Bell v. State, 699 So.2d 674, 676 (Fla.1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1123, 118 S.Ct. 1067, 140 L.Ed.2d 127 (1998). In Bell, the defendant asked the trial court to be allowed to assist his attorney because of complaints he had about counsel. The supreme court concluded that Bell never asked to represent himself, and therefore, the trial court did not err by not conducting a full Faretta hearing. Id. at 677. Therefore, in the instant case, there was no trial court error.

Affirmed.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and PARKER and GREEN, JJ., Concur.

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

Baker v. State, 745 So. 2d 1035, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 13945, 1999 WL 961224 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

745 So. 2d 1035 (Baker v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Faretta v. California
422 U.S. 806 (Supreme Court, 1975)
Bell v. State
699 So. 2d 674 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1997)