Reddick v. State

3 Citing cases

  1. Hillman v. State

    129 So. 3d 436 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 1 times

    Further, we note that previous opinions of this court have held that if a defendant continues to request to discharge his attorney after the trial court has determined that the attorney is not rendering ineffective assistance, the defendantmust be informed that he is not entitled to another attorney and that he would have to represent himself. See Montgomery v. State, 1 So.3d 1228, 1230 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (holding that where “there is no reasonable cause to believe effective assistance is not being rendered and the defendant still wishes to discharge counsel, the trial court must make clear to the defendant that there is no entitlement to court-appointed substitute counsel and that the defendant will have to represent himself or herself”); Reddick v. State, 636 So.2d 176, 177 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (“If the court finds that the defendant's complaints are meritless, then the trial court has the duty to advise the defendant that the court will not appoint substitute counsel and that the defendant would be exercising his right to self-representation if the court grants the request to discharge his counsel.”). However, in State v. Craft, 685 So.2d 1292, 1295 (Fla.1996) (citing Watts v. State, 593 So.2d 198, 203 (Fla.1992)), the Florida Supreme Court noted that where the defendant does not make an unequivocal request for self-representation, the trial court does not have an obligation to inform the defendant of his right to self-representation or to conduct a Faretta hearing.

  2. Jones v. State

    658 So. 2d 122 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 26 times
    Noting the complexity of combined Nelson /Faretta hearings and recommending a mechanical approach

    We also observed that if the defendant, in the face of this advice, continues to persist in a desire to discharge counsel, the trial court must determine under Faretta whether the defendant is knowingly and intelligently waiving the right to court-appointed counsel. Accord Reddick v. State, 636 So.2d 176 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). We have also held that a trial court commits reversible error in failing to conduct the inquiry required by Nelson.

  3. Augsberger v. State

    655 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 24 times
    Holding that trial court did not abuse discretion in denying motion to continue for purposes of hiring private counsel on eve of trial where defendant had several months to do so and failed to articulate sufficient reasons for his dissatisfaction with appointed counsel

    584 So.2d at 1106 (emphasis added). Accord Reddick v. State, 636 So.2d 176 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Instead, appellant was only requesting additional time to hire his own counsel.