CHARLOT v. State, 85 So. 3d 1176

Charlot was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon in the Fourth District Court of Appeal.
On appeal, Charlot challenged the denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal on the concealment element; the state presented a jury question about concealment.
Charlot also challenged the trial court for not conducting a Faretta hearing when he opted to go to trial against counsel's advice to press a suppression motion.
On the trial morning, defense counsel mentioned a possible suppression motion and the need for a continuance; Charlot did not want delay.
The judge conducted a colloquy, explaining the potential suppression motion and its possible denial; Charlot understood and still chose to proceed to trial.
Charlot was tried, found guilty of carrying a concealed weapon, and sentenced to thirty months of probation; the appellate court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the concealment element required a jury question.	Charlot	Charlot	Affirmed; jury question on concealment
Whether Faretta warnings were required when defendant chose trial over seeking suppression.	Charlot argued Faretta applied because he effectively acted as his own counsel by rejecting suppression.	State asserted no Faretta hearing needed since no request for self-representation occurred.	Faretta not required; proper inquiry conducted

Dorelus v. State, 747 So.2d 368 (Fla. 1999) (jury question on concealment element)
Curtis v. State, 685 So.2d 1234 (Fla.1996) (continuance denial not abuse where defendant informed and consented)
Boyd v. State, 45 So.3d 557 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (informed decision on speedy trial rights; no Faretta inquiry required)
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1975) (right to self-representation; prerequisites for waiver)
McCray v. State, 71 So.3d 848 (Fla.2011) (Faretta waiver analysis requirement after unequivocal request)