Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Florida opinions name it 1 courts 1992–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Faretta v. Californiagreen2 sentences2004Many of the petitions were improperly titled and lacked clarity regarding the specific relief sought. [1] However, one filing, dated July 1, 2002, requested a writ of mandamus ordering the circuit court to conduct a Durocher [2] hearing "to waive all further appeals and the post conviction appeals procedure." This Court denied most of Alston's petitions and, on December 20, 2002, issued the following order: [T]he Fourth Judicial Circuit Court is ordered to hold a hearing, within 60 days of the date of this order, at which both petitioner and his collateral counsel are present, to determine whe 2004Many of the petitions were improperly titled and lacked clarity regarding the specific relief sought. [1] However, one filing, dated July 1, 2002, requested a writ of mandamus ordering the circuit court to conduct a Durocher [2] hearing "to waive all further appeals and the post conviction appeals procedure." This Court denied most of Alston's petitions and, on December 20, 2002, issued the following order: [T]he Fourth Judicial Circuit Court is ordered to hold a hearing, within 60 days of the date of this order, at which both petitioner and his collateral counsel are present, to determine whe | 1 | 2 |
Durocher v. Singletarygreen1 sentence2012See Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 835 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975) (requiring a hearing to determine if an accused’s unequivocal request for self-representation should be granted); Durocher v. Singletary, 623 So.2d 482, 485 (Fla.1993) (requiring trial courts to evaluate defendants to determine if they understand the consequences of waiving collateral counsel and proceedings). | 1 | 1 |
Castro v. Stategreen2 sentences2010Cfi Castro, 744 So.2d at 987 (“CCRC proffered the testimony of Dr. Jethro Toomer, who testified that Castro was not competent to waive counsel. 2010Cfi Castro, 744 So.2d at 987 (“CCRC proffered the testimony of Dr. Jethro Toomer, who testified that Castro was not competent to waive counsel. | 1 | 1 |
Sanchez-Velasco v. Stategreen2 sentences2004In Sanchez-Velasco v. State, 702 So.2d 224 (Fla.1997), the circuit court held a Durocher hearing at which Sanchez-Velasco indicated that he understood the nature of postconviction motions, that by withdrawing his motion he would lose forever his right to any further appeals, and that after he elected to represent himself, the court would not appoint another attorney for him. 2004In Sanchez-Velasco v. State, 702 So.2d 224 (Fla.1997), the circuit court held a Durocher hearing at which Sanchez-Velasco indicated that he understood the nature of postconviction motions, that by withdrawing his motion he would lose forever his right to any further appeals, and that after he elected to represent himself, the court would not appoint another attorney for him. | 1 | 1 |
Carter v. Stategreen2 sentences2004Thereafter, the trial court shall proceed, if appropriate, in accord with our decisions in Sanchez-Velasco, 702 So.2d at 227-28 , or Carter v. State, 706 So.2d 873, 875-76 (Fla.1997). 2004Thereafter, the trial court shall proceed, if appropriate, in accord with our decisions in Sanchez-Velasco, 702 So.2d at 227-28 , or Carter v. State, 706 So.2d 873, 875-76 (Fla.1997). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
James v. State
green
2 sentences2025At that time, this Court concluded: “In the present case, the record reflects that the circuit court conducted a comprehensive Durocher inquiry in 2003 and found that James was competent to discharge counsel and dismiss all postconviction proceedings.” James, 974 So. 2d at 367 . 5. 2025Id. at 367-68 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Adams v. United States Ex Rel. McCann
green
2 sentences2008McCann, 317 U.S. 269, 279 , 63 S.Ct, 236 , 87 L.Ed. 268 (1942))). [4] We have contemplated the possibility of needing to review the trial court's findings during the Durocher hearing, and have now codified the procedure for review of dismissal of postconviction proceedings and discharge of counsel. 2008McCann, 317 U.S. 269, 279 , 63 S.Ct, 236 , 87 L.Ed. 268 (1942))). [4] We have contemplated the possibility of needing to review the trial court's findings during the Durocher hearing, and have now codified the procedure for review of dismissal of postconviction proceedings and discharge of counsel. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences1992I have not been promised anything or threatened to speak with Detective Bradley." [2] Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). [3] Durocher's challenge to this aggravator has no merit because the district court affirmed his prior conviction of first-degree murder. 1992I have not been promised anything or threatened to speak with Detective Bradley." [2] Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). [3] Durocher's challenge to this aggravator has no merit because the district court affirmed his prior conviction of first-degree murder. | 1 | 1992–1992 |