Guzzardo v. State
894 So. 2d 1088, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 3229, 2005 WL 562666
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 11, 2005·No. No. 5D04-2630·Published·Cited by 1 cases
Opinion
In this probation violation case, the State properly concedes that the trial court erred by failing to follow any of the requirements of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.111(d) and Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975), before requiring Appellant to proceed to hearing without benefit of counsel. The judgment and sentence are, therefore, reversed and this cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Guzzardo v. State, 894 So. 2d 1088, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 3229, 2005 WL 562666 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).
894 So. 2d 1088 (Guzzardo v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Sipple v. State
894 So. 2d 1088 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)