Monte v. State
2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 8
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Monte was charged with two counts of aggravated stalking and one count of violating a protective injunction and was tried March 10, 2008.
- On January 8, 2008 the trial court, at defense request, appointed an expert to address competency.
- January 16-18, 2008 the court sua sponte appointed two more experts; one found Monte not competent, the other found him competent.
- Monte requested standby counsel and proceeded pro se after Faretta inquiry on February 22, 2008; public defender was discharged per Monte's request.
- A February 28, 2008 hearing addressed discovery and speedy-trial issues; trial began March 10, 2008, with standby counsel present.
- The jury found Monte guilty on March 12, 2008; sentencing occurred April 23, 2008.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| whether the court erred by not renewing counsel at critical stages | Monte argues counsel offers were not renewed at key stages. | State argues renewal not required where Faretta inquiry already occurred and standby counsel was available. | Trial court reversal required for failure to renew before sentencing. |
| competency hearings at trial | Defense urged a competency hearing after multiple evaluations suggested questions. | State contends sufficient grounds existed to postpone or forego a hearing. | Remand for nunc pro tunc competency hearing if records available; otherwise new trial. |
| retroactive competency determination as basis for self-representation | If retroactive competency can be established, waiver of counsel remains valid. | Edwards concerns limit self-representation when not competent. | Remand to determine retroactive competency, which could validate Faretta waiver. |
| self-representation without determining competence to waive counsel | Competence to waive counsel is the same standard as competency to stand trial. | Edwards and later amendments limit self-representation when severe mental illness is present. | Retroactive competency may satisfy requirements; 2009 amendment not applied retroactively. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sproule v. State, 719 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (renewal required at each crucial stage where unrepresented)
- Lamb v. State, 535 So.2d 698 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (pretrial waiver timing; renewal not needed if no intervening stages)
- Segal v. State, 920 So.2d 1279 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (Faretta waivers require renewal at subsequent crucial stages)
- Beard v. State, 751 So.2d 61 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (sentencing requires renewal of counsel offer)
- Kepner v. State, 911 So.2d 1256 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (error to not renew offer before sentencing)
- Bowman v. State, 550 So.2d 544 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (failure to renew counsel prior to final sentencing error)
- Morgan v. State, 504 So.2d 504 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) (renewal error prior to final probation revocation hearing)
- Mason v. State, 489 So.2d 734 (Fla. 1986) (nunc pro tunc competency evaluation permitted under certain conditions)
- Brown v. State, 449 So.2d 417 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (retrospective competency evaluation context)
- Tingle v. State, 536 So.2d 202 (Fla.1988) (generally cannot retroactively determine competency; exception noted)