Gettis v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gettis v. State

892 So. 2d 1217, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 1431, 2005 WL 330613

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 14, 2005

DocketNo. 1D03-5350

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 892 So. 2d 1217 (Gettis 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

Gettis v. State, 892 So. 2d 1217, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 1431, 2005 WL 330613 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

BROWNING, J.

Appellant seeks review of his conviction and sentence for armed robbery with a firearm, alleging that the trial court improperly conducted both a Nelson inquiry¹ and a Faretta2 inquiry, and improperly restrained Appellant during final argument. We affirm as to the Nelson inquiry, and Appellant’s restraint. See Kenney v. State, 611 So.2d 575 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Kearse v. State, 605 So.2d 534, 536 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). However, because the trial court discharged Appellant’s attorney, relegating Appellant to pro se status without a proper waiver, we reverse and remand for a new trial.

At trial, Appellant repeatedly asked to discharge his counsel, stating that his family could hire counsel, and emphatically stating that he did not want to represent himself. The trial court would not allow a continuance for Appellant to secure coun[1218]*1218sel, but discharged his trial counsel without determining whether Appellant wished to proceed pro se or continue with his present counsel when faced with his inability to secure other counsel. This was error as, while a defendant has a right to pro se status, a proper waiver must be first secured from a defendant before a trial court can render to a defendant pro se status. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.111(d); Wilson v. State, 724 So.2d 144 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Smith v. State, 444 So.2d 542, 545 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), overruled on other grounds by Hughes v. State, 701 So.2d 378 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). Here the trial court did not secure Appellant’s waiver of his right to counsel and thereby erred, which necessitates Appellant’s retrial. Accordingly, we REVERSE and REMAND.

BARFIELD and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.

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

BROWNING, J.

Appellant seeks review of his conviction and sentence for armed robbery with a firearm, alleging that the trial court improperly conducted both a Nelson inquiry¹ and a Faretta2 inquiry, and improperly restrained Appellant during final argument. We affirm as to the Nelson inquiry, and Appellant’s restraint. See Kenney v. State, 611 So.2d 575 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Kearse v. State, 605 So.2d 534, 536 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). However, because the trial court discharged Appellant’s attorney, relegating Appellant to pro se status without a proper waiver, we reverse and remand for a new trial.

At trial, Appellant repeatedly asked to discharge his counsel, stating that his family could hire counsel, and emphatically stating that he did not want to represent himself. The trial court would not allow a continuance for Appellant to secure coun[1218]*1218sel, but discharged his trial counsel without determining whether Appellant wished to proceed pro se or continue with his present counsel when faced with his inability to secure other counsel. This was error as, while a defendant has a right to pro se status, a proper waiver must be first secured from a defendant before a trial court can render to a defendant pro se status. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.111(d); Wilson v. State, 724 So.2d 144 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Smith v. State, 444 So.2d 542, 545 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), overruled on other grounds by Hughes v. State, 701 So.2d 378 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). Here the trial court did not secure Appellant’s waiver of his right to counsel and thereby erred, which necessitates Appellant’s retrial. Accordingly, we REVERSE and REMAND.

BARFIELD and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

892 So. 2d 1217, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 1431, 2005 WL 330613, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gettis-v-state-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack