Cridland v. State

499 So. 2d 48, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 122, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 11544
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 23, 1986·No. No. 85-1225·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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

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

499 So. 2d 48 (Cridland v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Cridland v. State
522 So. 2d 538 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)