Crosby v. State, 125 So. 3d 822

Crosby was convicted by jury for dealing in stolen property and false verification of ownership after representing himself.
He unsuccessfully moved to dismiss his trial counsel pretrial; no Nelson hearing was held at that time.
On December 7, 2010, Crosby sought a Faretta hearing and was allowed to represent himself with standby counsel.
Trial occurred December 9, 2010; Crosby proceeded pro se with standby counsel available.
He challenged the trial court’s failure to conduct a Nelson inquiry and renew the offer of counsel; on appeal the court addressed these issues.
The court also reviewed Crosby’s argument about jury instructions under section 812.025 and certified conflicts related to Williams and Kiss.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Nelson hearing on discharge of counsel	Crosby contends the trial court failed to conduct a Nelson hearing before denying dismissal of counsel.	Court argues it conducted an eventual Nelson inquiry at the Faretta hearing and that initial failure was cured.	No reversible error; Nelson inquiry ultimately conducted.
Renewal of offer of counsel after Waiver	Crosby argues the court should have renewed the offer of counsel at trial.	Waiver at the Faretta stage relieves need to renew at start of trial; intervening stage requirement not met.	No reversible error; renewal not required given the waiver and stage.
Jury instruction under section 812.025	Court failed to instruct that the jury could convict on either grand theft or dealing in stolen property, not both.	Trial court allowed jury to consider all charges and later the State moved to dismiss the lesser offense; adequate under Williams.	Court rejected Crosby’s argument; affirmed conviction; certified conflict with Kiss and reiterated Williams questions.

Nelson v. State, 274 So.2d 256 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973) (premised Nelson procedure for discharge of court-appointed counsel)
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1975) (right to self-representation requires a Faretta inquiry)
Jackson v. State, 33 So.3d 833 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (unambiguous request to discharge counsel requires preliminary inquiry)
Morrison v. State, 818 So.2d 432 (Fla.2002) (general dissatisfaction with counsel not enough for Nelson)
Milkey v. State, 16 So.3d 172 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (Nelson error is per se reversible when no preliminary inquiry occurred)
Williams v. State, 66 So.3d 360 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (discussed section 812.025 and noted prior handling; current court rejected Crosby’s argument)
Kiss v. State, 42 So.3d 810 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (conflict certified regarding 812.025 instructional issues)
McCarthy v. State, 731 So.2d 778 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (renewal of counsel offer after waiver addressed in stage-specific manner)
Lamb v. State, 535 So.2d 698 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (renewal of counsel and stage considerations in various districts)
Penn v. State, 51 So.3d 622 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (general dissatisfaction not preserved; Nelson framework discussed)