Davis v. State, 230 So. 3d 948

Jerome James Davis was tried and convicted by a jury of burglary with assault/battery, false imprisonment (lesser included), and stalking (lesser included); sentenced to life for burglary plus additional terms.
At jury selection, Davis told the court he wanted to discharge his Public Defender, alleging inadequate communication and preparation by counsel; the court discharged counsel without holding a Nelson inquiry and allowed Davis to proceed pro se for selection.
Two days later the court inquired again and discharged the jury because Davis requested the investigating detective (who had not been subpoenaed due to an inadvertent omission) be present; trial was continued and the detective was later subpoenaed.
Davis filed a notice of expiration of speedy trial and sought discharge; the court denied relief, finding Davis partially responsible for delay because he chose self-representation and demanded the detective’s presence, and Davis failed to show actual prejudice.
The court later held a Nelson hearing only at sentencing, found appointed counsel not ineffective, and allowed Davis to represent himself for sentencing; the Second District reversed and remanded for a new trial because the trial court failed to conduct adequate Nelson and Faretta hearings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Failure to conduct Nelson hearing when defendant sought to discharge counsel	Davis argued he clearly and unequivocally sought to discharge counsel and the court failed to inquire into counsel’s effectiveness	State argued no reversible error; later conceded inadequate hearings required retrial	Court held trial court erred by not conducting an adequate Nelson inquiry at the time Davis sought to discharge counsel; reversal and new trial required
Failure to conduct Faretta inquiry before permitting self-representation	Davis argued court did not determine whether his waiver of counsel was knowing and intelligent or advise him of dangers of self-representation	State conceded the Faretta inquiry was inadequate	Court held the trial court failed to perform the required Faretta colloquy and this omission mandated a new trial
Speedy trial claim based on continuance to secure detective witness	Davis sought discharge for speedy trial violation due to delay between information filing and trial	State argued delay was not presumptively prejudicial and Davis’ actions contributed to delay	Court held no speedy-trial violation: delay not presumptively prejudicial, Davis partially responsible, and no actual prejudice shown
Evidentiary rulings at trial	Davis challenged multiple evidentiary rulings	State defended rulings as proper	Court did not reach these claims because case remanded for new trial due to Faretta/Nelson errors

Nelson v. State, 274 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973) (establishes requirement to inquire when defendant seeks to discharge appointed counsel)
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1975) (requires that waiver of counsel be knowing and intelligent and that defendant be warned of dangers of self-representation)
Finfrock v. State, 84 So. 3d 431 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (Nelson inquiry required when defendant clearly alleges attorney incompetence)
Jackson v. State, 33 So. 3d 833 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (failure to conduct any Nelson inquiry is per se error)
Torres v. State, 42 So. 3d 910 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (trial court must determine whether discharge request is unequivocal and ascertain reasons)
Laramee v. State, 90 So. 3d 341 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (failure to hold Nelson and Faretta hearings when requests are clear requires reversal)
Tennis v. State, 997 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 2008) (once an unequivocal request for self-representation is made, court must ensure waiver is knowing and intelligent)