Harden v. State
152 So. 3d 626
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Harden appeals his conviction for two counts of attempted robbery and one count of furnishing false information to a law enforcement officer.
- The trial court did not conduct a Faretta hearing after Harden made several unequivocal requests to represent himself.
- A Faretta hearing was ultimately held on July 5, 2011, sixteen months after Harden's initial self-representation requests, determining he was competent to proceed pro se.
- Harden represented himself at trial and was convicted on all counts.
- The court held that the failure to hold a timely Faretta hearing was per se reversible error, requiring reversal and remand for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to conduct Faretta hearing | Harden unequivocally sought self-representation. | Court postponed Faretta hearing until after discovery. | Per se reversible error; reversal and remand required. |
| Impact of delayed Faretta hearing on right to self-representation | Right to self-representation triggered by unequivocal requests; delay violated that right. | Competency found later; proceeding valid. | Delay violated Faretta requirements; new trial warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. Supreme Court (1975)) (right to self-representation requires a knowing and intelligent waiver after an unequivocal request)
- Tennis v. State, 997 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 2008) (unequivocal request triggers Faretta hearing obligation)
- Logan v. State, 846 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 2003) (no right to hybrid representation)
- Sams v. State, 849 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (pro se speedy-trial requests not adopted by counsel cannot be entertained on merits)