Ross v. State
722 So. 2d 263, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 15840, 1998 WL 874850
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Ross v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 726 So. 2d 317 →
Opinion
The trial court did not conduct an adequate inquiry into appellant’s objections to his court appointed counsel before discharging counsel and requiring appellant to attempt to conduct his own defense at trial. Therefore, we reverse and remand for a new trial. See Hardwick v. State, 521 So.2d 1071 (Fla.1988); Nelson v. State, 274 So.2d 256 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Ross v. State, 722 So. 2d 263, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 15840, 1998 WL 874850 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).
722 So. 2d 263 (Ross v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Nelson v. State
274 So. 2d 256 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1973)
Hardwick v. State
521 So. 2d 1071 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1988)