Petty v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Petty v. State

1 So. 3d 1183, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 656, 2009 WL 211919

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 30, 2009

Docket1D07-4976

StatusPublished

This text of 1 So. 3d 1183 (Petty 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

Petty v. State, 1 So. 3d 1183, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 656, 2009 WL 211919 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges his convictions and sentences for lewd and lascivious battery and unlawful sexual activity. He alleges that the trial court erred by failing to conduct an adequate Faretta 1 inquiry prior to allowing him to represent himself at trial. We agree and reverse.

Here, although the record indicates that the trial court adequately expressed to appellant the dangers of self-representation, the Faretta inquiry was inadequate because the trial court failed to inquire as to the extent of appellant’s education, his ability to read or write, his past experience with criminal proceedings, or his mental and physical condition. Brown v. State, 971 So.2d 270, 271 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (“Mthough the record in the present case demonstrates that the appellant was sufficiently apprised of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation, it discloses no inquiry into the appellant’s age, education, mental condition, physical condition, past experience with criminal proceedings, or other factors bearing upon his capacity to waive his constitutional right to counsel”); Flowers v. State, 976 So.2d 665 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (Faretta inquiry inadequate where trial court “did not advise the defendant of the advantages of representation by counsel nor ... inquire into the defendant’s age, education, ability to read and write, or any mental or physical conditions”). As such, the trial court committed per se reversible error. See Wilson v. State, 947 So.2d 1225 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). Thus, the appellant’s convictions are REVERSED and the cause is REMANDED for a new trial.

LEWIS and THOMAS, JJ., and LAWRENCE, JR., L. ARTHUR, Senior Judge, concur.

1

. Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 835, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975).

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges his convictions and sentences for lewd and lascivious battery and unlawful sexual activity. He alleges that the trial court erred by failing to conduct an adequate Faretta 1 inquiry prior to allowing him to represent himself at trial. We agree and reverse.

Here, although the record indicates that the trial court adequately expressed to appellant the dangers of self-representation, the Faretta inquiry was inadequate because the trial court failed to inquire as to the extent of appellant’s education, his ability to read or write, his past experience with criminal proceedings, or his mental and physical condition. Brown v. State, 971 So.2d 270, 271 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (“Mthough the record in the present case demonstrates that the appellant was sufficiently apprised of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation, it discloses no inquiry into the appellant’s age, education, mental condition, physical condition, past experience with criminal proceedings, or other factors bearing upon his capacity to waive his constitutional right to counsel”); Flowers v. State, 976 So.2d 665 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (Faretta inquiry inadequate where trial court “did not advise the defendant of the advantages of representation by counsel nor ... inquire into the defendant’s age, education, ability to read and write, or any mental or physical conditions”). As such, the trial court committed per se reversible error. See Wilson v. State, 947 So.2d 1225 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). Thus, the appellant’s convictions are REVERSED and the cause is REMANDED for a new trial.

LEWIS and THOMAS, JJ., and LAWRENCE, JR., L. ARTHUR, Senior Judge, concur.

1

. Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 835, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 So. 3d 1183, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 656, 2009 WL 211919, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/petty-v-state-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack