NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee,

v.

ALEXANDER NAPIER FLORENCE, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 18-0513 

FILED 12-19-2019

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2017-111034-001

The Honorable Kathleen H. Mead, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Casey Ball

Counsel for Appellee

The Bidwill Law Firm PLLC, Phoenix

By Josephine F. Bidwill

Counsel for Appellant
STATE v. FLORENCE

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Chief Judge Peter B. Swann delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Acting Presiding Judge David D. Weinzweig and Judge Joshua Rogers1

joined.

S W A N N, Judge:

¶1 Alexander Napier Florence appeals his convictions and 

sentences for possession of narcotic drugs, possession of drug 

paraphernalia, and possession of marijuana. For the following reasons, we 

affirm. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Florence was charged with one count each of possession of 

narcotic drugs, possession of drug paraphernalia, and possession of 

marijuana. Before trial, he invoked his right to self-representation through 

a voluntary, signed waiver of counsel, which the court accepted. At a 

subsequent hearing, the trial court told Florence to appear at hearings on 

time and warned him that failure to appear could result in revocation of his 

right to self-representation. Florence nevertheless failed to arrive on time 

“several times” at pretrial proceedings, resulting in bench warrants that 

were later quashed.

¶3 The day before trial, Florence again failed to appear on time.

The court consequently admonished him when he arrived to be on time and 

warned him of the consequences of failing to appear. During trial, the court

repeated its warning, stating “make sure you’re here on time. If you fail to 

appear, a warrant could issue for your arrest and the hearing could 

continue in your absence.”

¶4 After the jury retired to deliberate on the final trial day, 

Florence told the court that he planned to “stick around” to wait for the 

verdict. The jury was ready to return its verdict about a half-hour later.

 

1 The Honorable Joshua Rogers, Judge of the Arizona Superior Court, 

has been authorized to sit in this matter pursuant to Article VI, Section 3 of 

the Arizona Constitution.
STATE v. FLORENCE

Decision of the Court

3

When the court reconvened, Florence was not present, and the bailiff was 

unable to locate him. The court subsequently revoked Florence’s pro per

status and appointed his advisory counsel for the remainder of the 

proceedings.

¶5 The jury, by its verdict, found Florence guilty as charged.

Florence advised the court at sentencing that he had intended to be present 

for the verdict, but “g[ot] cold feet[.]” He did not object when the court 

informed him that his pro per status had been revoked. The court sentenced 

Florence to three concurrent terms of incarceration: a term of 6.5 years for 

possession of narcotic drugs, 3.75 years for possession of drug 

paraphernalia, and 3.75 years for possession of marijuana. It also credited 

him with 189 days’ presentence incarceration credit. Florence appealed.

DISCUSSION

¶6 Florence’s sole argument on appeal is that the trial court erred 

by revoking his right to represent himself. We review a trial court’s decision 

to revoke a defendant’s self-representation status for an abuse of discretion.

State v. Hidalgo, 241 Ariz. 543, 554 ¶ 44 (2017). A defendant has a 

constitutional right to proceed without counsel, “but only so long as the 

defendant is able and willing to abide by the rules of procedure and 

courtroom protocol.” State v. Gomez, 231 Ariz. 219, 222 ¶ 8 (2012) (quoting 

State v. Whalen, 192 Ariz. 103, 106 (App. 1997)). 

¶7 Florence repeatedly demonstrated an unwillingness or 

inability to abide by court orders and rules. As the record reflects, Florence 

was explicitly admonished several times for being late to hearings and

warned that proceedings could continue in his absence if he failed to 

appear. Notwithstanding the trial court’s warnings, Florence was 

continually late to pretrial proceedings and ultimately failed to appear for 

the pronouncement of the jury’s verdict, despite his advising the court that 

he planned to stay nearby to wait for the verdict. As such, the trial court did 

not abuse its discretion when it revoked Florence’s pro per status. 
STATE v. FLORENCE

Decision of the Court

4

CONCLUSION

¶8 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.