Laramee v. State
90 So. 3d 341
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Laramee appeals multiple sexually-related felony convictions, claiming trial errors denying Nelson and Faretta hearings.
- Public defender conflict led to attorney Tilton representing Laramee; concerns raised about counsel’s competence and communication.
- Laramee wrote to the trial judge with complaints, including limited meetings, lack of deposition, and a bar complaint attachment alleging inadequate representation.
- Pre-trial exchange shows Laramee insisting on self-representation; the court denies pro se status on eve of trial.
- On the eve of trial the state restricts Haecky-related testimony due to Fifth Amendment concerns; trial proceeds with Laramee convicted.
- Court reverses and remands for a new trial, directing consideration of Laramee’s exculpatory evidence and accompanying evidentiary issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was a Nelson hearing required before discharging counsel? | Laramee clearly urged discharge based on incompetence and conflict. | Tilton’s representation raised serious concerns warranting a Nelson inquiry. | Reversed; Nelson hearing required. |
| Did the trial court need a Faretta hearing before allowing self-representation? | Laramee clearly invoked pro se representation. | Court could deny based on timing and dissatisfaction without a Faretta inquiry. | Reversed; Faretta hearing required. |
| Did the court’s handling of exculpatory evidence and Fifth Amendment issues affect retrial? | Laramee should have opportunity to present all relevant exculpatory evidence; Fifth Amendment concerns must be carefully managed. | Court can manage Fifth Amendment issues without compromising evidence. | Remand for new trial with proper handling of evidence and privilege concerns. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nelson v. State, 274 So.2d 256 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973) (Nelson hearing required when claiming ineffective counsel)
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. Supreme Court 1975) (right to self-representation requires Faretta inquiry)
- Logan v. State, 846 So.2d 472 (Fla. 2003) (consideration of representations beyond in-court statements)
- Pasha v. State, 39 So.3d 1259 (Fla. 2010) (timeliness of self-representation request affects waiver analysis)