Moore v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Moore v. State

615 So. 2d 874, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 3474, 1993 WL 84492

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 25, 1993

DocketNo. 91-2338

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 615 So. 2d 874 (Moore 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

Moore v. State, 615 So. 2d 874, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 3474, 1993 WL 84492 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

JORGENSON, Associate Judge.

The appellant challenges multiple judgments of conviction and sentences for the sale of cocaine, and possession with intent to sell. Because the court failed to conduct a sufficiently thorough inquiry in connection with the appellant’s decision to represent himself at trial, the convictions must be reversed.

The necessity for a thorough inquiry when a defendant waives the right to counsel derives from Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975), and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.111(d). As Faretta indicates, a defendant’s decision in this regard must be knowingly and intelligently made, and the defendant should be made aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation. Numerous cases applying Faretta and rule 3.111(d) have described the necessary parameters of the required inquiry. See e.g., Taylor v. State, 610 So.2d 576 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Hayes v. State, 566 So.2d 340 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Smith v. State, 444 So.2d 542 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Although the court made some inquiry in the present case; and cautioned the appellant against self-representation, the inquiry fell short of that which is mandated by cases such as Taylor.

[875]*875Because the appellant’s convictions must be reversed due to the absence of a sufficient Faretta inquiry, it is unnecessary to address his remaining assertions of error. The convictions are reversed, and the cause is remanded.

WIGGINTON and MICKLE, JJ., concur.

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

JORGENSON, Associate Judge.

The appellant challenges multiple judgments of conviction and sentences for the sale of cocaine, and possession with intent to sell. Because the court failed to conduct a sufficiently thorough inquiry in connection with the appellant’s decision to represent himself at trial, the convictions must be reversed.

The necessity for a thorough inquiry when a defendant waives the right to counsel derives from Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975), and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.111(d). As Faretta indicates, a defendant’s decision in this regard must be knowingly and intelligently made, and the defendant should be made aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation. Numerous cases applying Faretta and rule 3.111(d) have described the necessary parameters of the required inquiry. See e.g., Taylor v. State, 610 So.2d 576 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Hayes v. State, 566 So.2d 340 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Smith v. State, 444 So.2d 542 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Although the court made some inquiry in the present case; and cautioned the appellant against self-representation, the inquiry fell short of that which is mandated by cases such as Taylor.

[875]*875Because the appellant’s convictions must be reversed due to the absence of a sufficient Faretta inquiry, it is unnecessary to address his remaining assertions of error. The convictions are reversed, and the cause is remanded.

WIGGINTON and MICKLE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

615 So. 2d 874, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 3474, 1993 WL 84492, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-state-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack