State v. Cappetta
| Decision Date | 10 December 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 37099,37099 |
| Citation | 216 So.2d 749 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Nicholas CAPPETTA, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Charles W. Musgrove, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.
Parkhurst & Hayes, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.
The State of Florida, by direct appeal, contests a decision of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, which reversed the conviction of appellee and granted a new trial. See Cappetta v. State, 204 So.2d 913 (4th DCA Fla.1968).
Appellee alleged for the first time on appeal that fundamental error had been committed by the trial court regarding his right to waive counsel and singlehandedly conduct his own defense. The District Court upheld appellee's interpretation of the events at trial (which we shall review presently) as repugnant to what it initially deemed to be essential standards of fairness guaranteed to an accused by Section 11 of the Declaration of Rights, F.S.A. In essence, the District Court held that Section 11 was a 'specific organic directive' guaranteeing 'one of the most elementary prerequisites of a fair trial,' the right of an accused to be defended by himself, or counsel, or both himself and counsel.
The District Court's decision was clearly predicated on its initial construction of a controlling provision of the Florida Constitution, namely Section 11, Declaration of Rights, thus giving this Court appellate jurisdiction. See Armstrong v. City of Tampa, 106 So.2d 407 (Fla.1958).
Appellee was an indigent and the trial court appointed counsel for him. However, at the trial but prior to the taking of testimony, appellee stated that he had previously filed a motion for proceeding in proper person without aid of counsel. The following exchange then occurred:
The District Court reversed the trial court because it felt that this exchange evidenced a denial of the accused's right to waive counsel and conduct his own defense, a right which the District Court deemed not subject to limitation without proper judicial consideration of the circumstances at hand.
Upon a careful reading of the record, we are conviced that the trial court did not deny appellee's motion to proceed in proper person. We note that in his reply to appellee's statement that he would like to conduct his own cause, the trial judge granted the motion with an affirmative 'All right * * *.' Immediately after this motion was granted, appellee proceeded to conduct his own defense by requesting a continuance on grounds that he needed more time to prepare his own defense.
Since the District Court's Decision to reverse was predicated on what it construed to be a denial of appellee's motion we are tempted to simply dispose of the case on this ground. However, some additional points require our attention. We are satisfied with the general rule as delineated by the District...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Indiana v. Edwards
...decisions and two secondary sources). See, e.g., Cappetta v. State, 204 So.2d 913, 917–918 (Fla.App.1967), rev'd on other grounds, 216 So.2d 749 (Fla.1968), cited in Faretta, supra, at 813, n. 9, 95 S.Ct. 2525 (assuring a “mentally competent” defendant the right “to conduct his own defense”......
-
Major v. Com., No. 2007-SC-000734-MR.
...decisions and two secondary sources); e.g., Cappetta v. State, 204 So.2d 913, 917-918 (Fla.App.1967), rev'd on other grounds, 216 So.2d 749 (Fla.1968) a "mentally competent" defendant the right "to conduct his own defense" provided that "no unusual circumstances exist" such as, e.g., "menta......
-
Bowen v. State, s. 93-03918
...in the Sixth Amendment right to self-representation. In Cappetta v. State, 204 So.2d 913 (Fla. 4th DCA1967), rev'd on other grounds, 216 So.2d 749 (Fla.1968), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 1008, 89 S.Ct. 1610, 22 L.Ed.2d 787 (1969), the Fourth District considered, pre-Faretta, the constitutionalit......
-
Martinez v. Court of Appeal of California Fourth App. Dist.
...2d 281, 287, 272 P. 2d 195, 199 (1954) (same); Cappetta v. State , 204 So. 2d 913, 918 (Fla. App. 1967) (same), rev'd, State v. Capetta , 216 So. 2d 749, 750 (Fla. 1968) (finding voluntary and intelligent waiver of right to proceed pro se 5 See, e.g., SEC v. Sloan, 436 U. S. 103 (1978) ( pr......
-
Self-representation and ineffective assistance of counsel: how trial judges can find their way through the convoluted legacy of Faretta and Nelson.
...self-representation established in Cappetta v. State, 204 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967), and approved by the Florida Supreme Court at 216 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 1968), was overruled by On the other hand, the Fourth District has suggested that trial judges should inquire about the fairness of a t......