From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rose v. Crosby

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division
Apr 26, 2006
Case No. 8:93-cv-1169-T-23EAJ (M.D. Fla. Apr. 26, 2006)

Opinion

Case No. 8:93-cv-1169-T-23EAJ.

April 26, 2006


ORDER


Rose's motion (Doc. 88) to proceed with self-representation was referred (Doc. 89) to the Magistrate Judge to conduct a Faretta-type hearing. She recommends (Doc. 99) the denial of the motion. All parties were provided copies of the Report and Recommendation. The respondent filed his objections (Doc. 100) on January 19, 2006. Rose's appointed counsel filed his objections (Doc. 101) on January 25, 2005. Milo Rose filed his pro se objections (Doc. 103) on February 23, 2006. Both the respondent and Rose's counsel agree with the recommended denial of Rose's request for self-representation.

After independently examining the file, reviewing Magistrate Judge Jenkin's Report and Recommendation, and considering the objections, Rose's pro se objections are overruled and the report and recommendation is adopted, confirmed, and incorporated by reference into this order. The motion for self-representation (Doc. 88) is DENIED. The respondent and Rose's counsel have thirty (30) days to jointly file a proposed schedule for the filing of an amended petition (if necessary) and new briefs.


Summaries of

Rose v. Crosby

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division
Apr 26, 2006
Case No. 8:93-cv-1169-T-23EAJ (M.D. Fla. Apr. 26, 2006)
Case details for

Rose v. Crosby

Case Details

Full title:MILO ROSE, Petitioner, v. JAMES V. CROSBY, JR., Respondent

Court:United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division

Date published: Apr 26, 2006

Citations

Case No. 8:93-cv-1169-T-23EAJ (M.D. Fla. Apr. 26, 2006)

Citing Cases

Toro v. State

We held in Freeman v. State, 65 So.3d 553 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011), that after such a finding has been made, a…

Freeman v. State

However, once a defendant "passes beyond the direct appeal stage and into post-conviction proceedings, there…