Arthur Slinger v. State
219 So. 3d 163
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Arthur Slinger was tried by jury and convicted of sexual battery and two counts of lewd or lascivious offenses involving a 12‑year‑old male.
- Prior to trial Slinger moved to discharge his court‑appointed public defender; the court held proceedings that combined elements of a Nelson hearing and a Faretta inquiry.
- After the court found appointed counsel was not ineffective, Slinger stated he wanted to represent himself and the court conducted a brief Faretta inquiry.
- The Faretta exchange was limited (about three transcript pages) and did not address Slinger’s mental health history, maximum possible penalties, jury selection, or impaired access to legal resources while in custody.
- The trial court did not state on the record its reasons for finding Slinger’s waiver of counsel knowing and voluntary.
- The Fifth DCA concluded the Faretta inquiry was inadequate, reversed the convictions, and remanded for further proceedings; it did not reach Slinger’s double‑jeopardy argument.
Issues
| Issue | Slinger’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of Faretta waiver inquiry | Waiver was not knowing or voluntary because the court failed to fully inform him of disadvantages, penalties, and complexity | Trial court conducted a sufficient Faretta inquiry and accepted his waiver | Reversed: the Faretta inquiry was constitutionally inadequate and the court abused its discretion in accepting the waiver |
| Conflation of Nelson and Faretta hearings | Combining Nelson and Faretta matters led to an insufficient, unfocused inquiry | Court procedures permitted addressing both issues in same proceeding | Court criticized conflation; emphasized distinct, methodical Nelson vs. Faretta inquiries to avoid error |
| Failure to advise on penalties and disadvantages of self‑representation | Court failed to explain maximum sentence and material disadvantages (limited access to legal resources, witness contact, jury selection) | Court warned about procedural rules and expected competence | Held those omissions were material; without them waiver cannot be shown knowing and intelligent |
| Double jeopardy as to dual convictions | Argued dual convictions violated double jeopardy | State defended convictions | Not reached due to reversal on Faretta ground; preserved for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (recognizing constitutional right of self‑representation)
- Fitzpatrick v. Wainwright, 800 F.2d 1057 (11th Cir.) (factors and ultimate test for Faretta inquiry focus on defendant’s understanding)
- McCray v. State, 71 So. 3d 848 (Fla. 2011) (standard of review; failure to conduct Faretta inquiry when waiver is unequivocal is reversible error)
- Nelson v. State, 274 So. 2d 256 (Fla.) (procedure for discharging appointed counsel for ineffectiveness)
- Jones v. State, 658 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 2d DCA) (guidance on content of Faretta inquiry and need to explain consequences)
- Bowen v. State, 698 So. 2d 248 (Fla.) (examples of more detailed Faretta inquiry that courts have used)