Wilson v. State
76 So. 3d 1085
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Wilson was convicted of robbery with a firearm in Florida.
- Pretrial and sentencing hearings occurred; standby counsel was appointed after Wilson chose to represent himself.
- Wilson repeatedly elected to proceed pro se after Faretta inquiries in 2009.
- A suppression motion was heard and denied; the denial was not followed by a renewed offer of counsel at trial.
- Trial commenced three weeks after the suppression ruling without a renewed Faretta inquiry or renewed counsel offer.
- The State conceded no Faretta inquiry occurred at trial; the court proceeded to trial with Wilson unrepresented.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to renew counsel waiver at trial is reversible error | Wilson | State | Per se reversible error; renewal required at trial start |
| Whether the suppression ruling constituted a crucial stage requiring renewal | Wilson | State | Yes; trial court needed to renew at trial commencement |
Key Cases Cited
- Traylor v. State, 596 So.2d 957 (Fla.1992) (Right to counsel must be renewed at each crucial stage)
- Bloodsaw v. State, 949 So.2d 1119 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (harmless error analysis not applicable to Faretta failure at crucial stage)
- Pall v. State, 632 So.2d 1084 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (start of trial deemed crucial stage for Rule 3.111(d)(5))
- Lamb v. State, 535 So.2d 698 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (start of trial context for Faretta renewal)
- Tennis v. State, 997 So.2d 375 (Fla.2008) (Faretta hearing at crucial stage is reversible error)
- Monte v. State, 51 So.3d 1196 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (case-by-case analysis of intervening proceedings affecting Faretta renewal)
- Sproule v. State, 719 So.2d 349 (Fla.4th DCA 1998) (intervening proceedings can require renewal of counsel offer)