Chapman v. State

8 So. 3d 504, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 5423, 2009 WL 1393413
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Chapman v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 10597
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided May 20, 2009·No. 4D08-2978·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Based upon the state’s concession of error, we reverse appellant’s conviction and sentence and remand for a new trial. The trial court conducted a Faretta 1 inquiry and determined that appellant was competent to represent himself. However, at each subsequent critical stage of the proceedings the court failed to renew an offer to appellant to obtain assistance of counsel. See Traylor v. State, 596 So.2d 957, 968 (Fla.1992); Sproule v. State, 719 So.2d 349 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Fla. R. Crim P. 3.111(d)(5).

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

WARNER, HAZOURI and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.
1

. Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975).

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

Chapman v. State, 8 So. 3d 504, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 5423, 2009 WL 1393413 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

8 So. 3d 504 (Chapman 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)
Sproule v. State
719 So. 2d 349 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)
Traylor v. State
596 So. 2d 957 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1992)