See Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(b); Miller v. State, 8 So.3d 451 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); Demps v. State, 696 So. 2d 1296, 1297 n.1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Caracciolo v. State, 564 So.2d 1163 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). AEDPA became effective on April 24, 1996 and provided a one year window for the petitioner to file his petition.
A hearing on a motion for new trial is a crucial stage. See Howard v. State, 147 So. 3d 1040, 1043 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (overruled in part on other grounds); Miller v. State, 8 So. 3d 451, 453 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); see also Harper v. State, 201 So. 2d 65, 67 (Fla. 1967) ("The defendant’s motion for a new trial represents a valuable right … and a hearing on this motion is a critical stage of the proceedings, at which an indigent defendant has the right to appointed counsel."). [3, 4] Here, although the trial court renewed the offer of counsel many times throughout the proceedings, it did not renew the offer at the start of the sentencing hearing when it heard argument on the motion for new trial.
First, a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel may give rise to an order granting a new trial, and the State's argument to the contrary ignores the weight of authority. SeeRobinson v. State , 702 So. 2d 213, 217 (Fla. 1997) (granting new trial in part based on ineffective assistance of counsel); Miller v. State , 8 So. 3d 451, 453 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (noting trial court erred in treating motion for new trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel as filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 (citing Skrandel v. State , 830 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) )); Lockwood v. State , 608 So. 2d 133, 134 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) ("[T]here is no procedural bar to appellant raising claims of ineffective assistan[ce] of counsel in a motion for new trial.") (citation omitted); Jefferson v. State , 440 So. 2d 20, 22 n.1 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) ("Under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.600(b)(8), ineffective assistance of counsel may properly be raised as a ground for new trial."); see alsoSmith v. State , 579 So. 2d 906 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) ; Wright v. State , 428 So. 2d 746, 748–49 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (finding allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel are reviewable on direct appeal if sufficiently raised in motion for new trial), approved , 446 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 1984). Second, trial courts have the authority to grant a new
The hearing on a defendant's motion for new trial is also a critical stage. See Harper v. State, 201 So.2d 65, 66 (Fla.1967); Miller v. State, 8 So.3d 451, 453 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). Failure to renew the offer of counsel at a critical stage and conduct a Faretta inquiry if the defendant rejects the renewed offer is per se reversible error. See Cuyler v. State, 131 So.3d 827, 828 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014); Travis v. State, 969 So.2d 532, 533 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); Wilson v. State, 947 So.2d 1225, 1226–27 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007).
The hearing on a defendant's motion for new trial is also a critical stage. See Harper v. State, 201 So.2d 65, 66 (Fla.1967) ; Miller v. State, 8 So.3d 451, 453 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). Failure to renew the offer of counsel at a critical stage and conduct a Faretta inquiry if the defendant rejects the renewed offer is per se reversible error. See Cuyler v. State, 131 So.3d 827, 828 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) ; Travis v. State, 969 So.2d 532, 533 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) ; Wilson v. State, 947 So.2d 1225, 1226–27 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007).