Sylvester Hooks v. State of Florida
236 So. 3d 1122
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Sylvester Hooks waived counsel and elected to represent himself at trial and at a probation-violation hearing after signing and initialing a detailed Self-Representation Advisory Form/Trial.
- The trial court reiterated on the record the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation, asked Hooks if he read the form and still wished to proceed pro se, and allowed counsel to remain as standby counsel.
- Hooks was convicted by a jury of drug-possession-with-intent-to-sell counts and the court revoked probation on a separate violation; Hooks did not object at trial to the adequacy of the Faretta colloquy.
- On appeal Hooks argued the Faretta colloquy was deficient because the trial court did not ask specific questions about age, education, literacy, mental/physical health, drug use, or prior experience representing himself.
- The State conceded no direct on-the-record inquiry about Hooks’ ability to read occurred, but the record showed Hooks signed the form swearing he read and understood it; the trial court found no reason to question Hooks’ competence.
- The First DCA affirmed the conviction and held the Faretta inquiry adequate under controlling precedent, while certifying a question of great public importance about whether omission of explicit inquiry into age, experience, and understanding of procedural rules invalidates a Faretta waiver.
Issues
| Issue | Hooks’ Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Faretta inquiry was adequate | Court failed to ask specific questions (age, education, literacy, mental health, drug use, prior self-rep), so waiver was invalid | Waiver was adequate because Hooks read/signed an exhaustive advisory form and affirmed on the record that he read/understood it; specific verbatim questions are unnecessary | Waiver was valid: court sufficiently advised Hooks and found waiver knowing and voluntary; no reason to doubt competence |
| Whether failure to ask about ability to read affects waiver | Hook says inability to read could invalidate waiver | State concedes no direct inquiry on reading ability but points to Hooks’ written acknowledgement as showing literacy | Signature and on-the-record affirmation that he read and understood the form satisfied the court; asking whether he can read would be superfluous |
| Whether courts must ask specific "magic words" or scripted questions | Hook urges mandated specific inquiries (per some cases) | State and panel: no magic words required; courts should use common-sense colloquy assessing understanding | Court reaffirmed that Rule 3.111(d) and Faretta do not require specific scripted questions; focus is on whether defendant waived with "eyes open" |
| Whether failure to ask age/experience/rules-of-procedure invalidates waiver (certified question) | Hook contends omission renders waiver invalid | State and panel argue such a rule would conflict with Faretta and later Florida precedent | Panel found waiver valid in this case but certified as question of great public importance whether omission of explicit inquiry into age/experience/understanding of rules renders a Faretta inquiry invalid |
Key Cases Cited
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (recognizes constitutional right to self-representation and requires waiver be knowing and voluntary)
- Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389 (1993) (distinguishes competency inquiry from knowing-and-voluntary waiver inquiry)
- Indiana v. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164 (2008) (permits denying self-representation to defendants with severe mental illness despite competency to stand trial)
- State v. Bowen, 698 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 1997) (Florida Supreme Court: competent defendant may not be denied right to self-representation based on education or case complexity)
- Potts v. State, 718 So. 2d 757 (Fla. 1998) (rejects ‘‘magic words’’ requirement for Faretta colloquy)
- Edenfield v. State, 45 So. 3d 26 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (reaffirms no specific scripted questions required; adequacy assessed by overall record)
- Aguirre-Jarquin v. State, 9 So. 3d 593 (Fla. 2009) (language suggesting courts "must" inquire about age/experience/rules-of-procedure discussed and treated as dicta)