formal Faretta inquiry in Florida

2024See Morgan v. State, 991 So. 2d 984, 988 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).

2009See Morgan v. State, 991 So.2d 984, 988 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).

2009In Waterhouse v. State, 596 So.2d 1008, 1014 (Fla.1992), the court excused the lack of a formal Faretta hearing when the trial judge warned defendant on numerous occasions of the dangers in representing himself and notified him that he would be held to the rules of procedure and evidence.

2008See Waterhouse v. State, 596 So.2d 1008, 1014 (Fla.1992); Butler v. State, 767 So.2d 534, 539 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).

2008See Waterhouse v. State, 596 So.2d 1008, 1014 (Fla.1992); Butler v. State, 767 So.2d 534, 539 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).

2007Ideally, a trial court should conduct a formal Faretta inquiry and, consistent with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.111(d)(2), make "a thorough inquiry . . . into both the accused's comprehension of th[e] offer [of assistance of counsel] and the accused's capacity to make a knowing and intelligent waiver" and "advise the defendant of the disadvantages and dangers of self-representation." See also Butler, 767 So.2d at 539 .

2024Defendant’s reply brief contends “the State analogizes the court’s failure to engage in the Faretta inquiry here to cases where abbreviated inquiries were found to be adequate because the record showed the defendant ‘had proven himself sufficiently sophisticated in his knowledge of the courts and the law that a formal Faretta inquiry was not required.’ Davis v. State, 10 So. 3d 176, 178 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009).” We agree with Defendant that “[t]his analogy does not withstand scrutiny.” We have excused non-compliance with Faretta where a defendant has proven himself sufficiently sophisticated in hi

2000In affirming, the Second Circuit stated, "Maldonado's statements and conduct throughout the proceedings reflected his familiarity with the workings of the legal system and with the options legally available to him." Maldonado-Rivera, 922 F.2d at 977.