Forbes v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Forbes v. State

650 So. 2d 704, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 1982, 1995 WL 79891

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 1, 1995·No. No. 94-1797·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Because the “record affirmatively shows that defendant was literate, competent, and understanding, that he was voluntarily exercising his informed free will, and that the court made it explicitly clear that it thought defendant was making a mistake in refusing to accept the appointment of counsel,” Jones v. State, 449 So.2d 253, 257 (Fla.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 893, 105 S.Ct. 269, 83 L.Ed.2d 205 (1984), we reject the appellant’s contention that the trial court’s Faretta¹ inquiry was reversibly insufficient.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Because the “record affirmatively shows that defendant was literate, competent, and understanding, that he was voluntarily exercising his informed free will, and that the court made it explicitly clear that it thought defendant was making a mistake in refusing to accept the appointment of counsel,” Jones v. State, 449 So.2d 253, 257 (Fla.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 893, 105 S.Ct. 269, 83 L.Ed.2d 205 (1984), we reject the appellant’s contention that the trial court’s Faretta¹ inquiry was reversibly insufficient.

Affirmed.

Forbes v. State, 650 So. 2d 704, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 1982, 1995 WL 79891 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

650 So. 2d 704 (Forbes v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related