Cridland v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cridland v. State

499 So. 2d 48, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 122, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 11544

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 23, 1986

DocketNo. 85-1225

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 499 So. 2d 48 (Cridland 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

Cridland v. State, 499 So. 2d 48, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 122, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 11544 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

George Cridland appeals his conviction of second-degree murder and the sentence entered thereon. Following a thorough review of the record we conclude that the trial court satisfied the standards of Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2025, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975), in determining that Cridland was competent to exercise his right to self-representation. See also Jones v. State, 449 So.2d 253 (Fla.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 893, 105 S.Ct. 269, 83 L.Ed.2d 205 (1984). The other trial errors claimed by Cridland are either harmless or not preserved for appellate review. The judgment of conviction is, accordingly, affirmed.

The trial court’s failure to provide written reasons for Cridland’s departure sentence, contrary to the requirements of Hendrix v. State, 475 So.2d 1218 (Fla.1985), requires that we vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

George Cridland appeals his conviction of second-degree murder and the sentence entered thereon. Following a thorough review of the record we conclude that the trial court satisfied the standards of Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2025, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975), in determining that Cridland was competent to exercise his right to self-representation. See also Jones v. State, 449 So.2d 253 (Fla.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 893, 105 S.Ct. 269, 83 L.Ed.2d 205 (1984). The other trial errors claimed by Cridland are either harmless or not preserved for appellate review. The judgment of conviction is, accordingly, affirmed.

The trial court’s failure to provide written reasons for Cridland’s departure sentence, contrary to the requirements of Hendrix v. State, 475 So.2d 1218 (Fla.1985), requires that we vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

499 So. 2d 48, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 122, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 11544, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cridland-v-state-fladistctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack