Ausby v. State
| Decision Date | 25 April 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. HH-297,HH-297 |
| Citation | 358 So.2d 562 |
| Parties | Samuel AUSBY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Michael J. Minerva, Public Defender, Margaret Good, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., George R. Georgieff and Patti Englander, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.
A jury convicted Ausby of kidnapping, sexual battery, armed robbery and aggravated battery. He appeals contending that he was denied his constitutional right to defend himself without proper inquiry by the trial court. We agree and reverse.
At Ausby's request, and upon being adjudged insolvent, the public defender was appointed to represent him. Shortly before trial he indicated to his public defender attorney his desire to discharge him and to proceed as his own attorney. The public defender arranged for him to be heard by the Court. At the hearing, Ausby orally moved the court to relieve the public defender and to permit him to represent himself. The Court conducted an inquiry into his educational background and his reasons for wanting the public defender discharged. Ausby complained the public defender did not maintain adequate personal contact with him, failed to locate and interview potential defense witnesses and failed to provide him with copies of depositions. The public defender informed the court that he visited Ausby weekly, that potential defense witnesses were actively being sought and copies of depositions would be furnished Ausby as soon as the court reporter transcribed them. Without further inquiry, the court denied Ausby's motion.
Our Supreme Court has stated that in the absence of unusual circumstances, an accused who is mentally competent and sui juris has the right to conduct his own defense without counsel. State v. Cappetta, 216 So.2d 749 (Fla.1968). Among the unusual circumstances which would preclude a defendant from representing himself are where by reason of his age, mental derangement, lack of knowledge or education, or experience in criminal procedures would deprive him of a fair trial if allowed to conduct his own defense or in any case, where the complexity of the crime is such that in the interest of justice legal representation is necessary. Cappetta v. State, 204 So.2d 913 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967). The United States Supreme Court has stated that a defendant in a state criminal trial has a constitutional right to proceed without counsel when he voluntarily and intelligently elects to do so. Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975).
When Ausby moved the court to permit him to defend himself, the court should have conducted an inquiry to see if he was making an intelligent and voluntary decision. Upon making a determination that Ausby had made a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Frazier v. State
...Attorney Sheaffer, as did the defendant in Mitchell, nor did Frazier ask to represent himself, as did the defendant in Ausby v. State, 358 So.2d 562 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), cert. denied, 365 So.2d 715 Under these facts, we do not believe that the trial judge was obligated to do anything more t......
-
Morris v. State, 94-1956
...trial if the defendant proceeds pro se. Appellant cites cases which do refer to a fair trial factor, two of which are: Ausby v. State, 358 So.2d 562 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), and Robinson v. State, 368 So.2d 674 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). Those cases cited as authority a pre-Faretta decision of this c......
-
Smith v. State
...supra, Costello v. Carlisle, 413 So.2d 834 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Robinson v. State, 368 So.2d 674 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Ausby v. State, 358 So.2d 562 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Kimble v. State, 429 So.2d 1369 (Fla. 3rd DCA In the instant case, the trial court, although inquiring at length concernin......
-
Costello v. Carlisle, AF-488
...of the disadvantage under which he is placing himself. See Robinson v. State, 368 So.2d 674, 675 (Fla. 1 DCA 1979), Ausby v. State, 358 So.2d 562 (Fla. 1 DCA 1978). Among the disadvantages petitioner Costello will experience are his restricted access to law books, his inability to conduct i......