Lindsey v. State, 69 So. 3d 363

Lindsey was convicted of robbery with a weapon in Florida and sentenced accordingly.
He moved to dismiss his court-appointed counsel and to represent himself; the trial court conducted a Nelson inquiry and found no ineffective assistance by counsel.
The court informed Lindsey he could hire private counsel or proceed Pro Se, and Lindsey insisted on discharging counsel, prompting a Faretta-like hearing.
The trial court concluded Lindsey's request to represent himself was unequivocal and denied it, warning about the potential prison exposure in a first-degree felony case.
The judge emphasized that representation by self would be inappropriate, and Lindsey proceeded to trial with court-appointed counsel.
The appellate court held the trial court applied the wrong standard, concluded Lindsey did not effectively waive the right to counsel, and reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Lindsey unequivocally requested self-representation and whether a waiver occurred	Lindsey asserted an unequivocal request for self-representation	State argued Lindsey may have impliedly waived the right by proceeding with counsel	Unequivocal request not waived; reversal and remand

Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1975) (right to self-representation requires a knowing and intelligent waiver)
State v. Bowen, 698 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 1997) (once competent defendant waives counsel, no further inquiry into strategy)
Brown v. Wainwright, 665 F.2d 607 (5th Cir. 1982) (waiver may occur when defendant vacillates after request)
Kearse v. State, 605 So.2d 534 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (waiver requires evidence defendant abandoned initial request)
Moore v. State, 820 So.2d 442 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (court must assess continued desire to proceed pro se)
Nelson v. State, 274 So.2d 256 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973) (Nelson inquiry to assess competency of counsel)