Opinion ID: 1751020
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Faretta Inquiry

Text: CCRC argues that the circuit court violated both the Florida and Federal Constitutions by conducting an inadequate inquiry under Faretta, and allowing Mr. McDonald to proceed pro se at his postconviction proceedings below. However, the circuit court performed a thorough and extensive Faretta inquiry, and CCRC, when given the opportunity to do so, asserted no basis for denying McDonald's request to represent himself. Initially, we examine the claim that the circuit court failed to conduct an adequate Faretta inquiry. [5] We note at the outset, during the Faretta inquiry, the circuit court specifically requested additional input from CCRC by asking, Do you know of any reason why I shouldn't appoint him to represent himself? In response to the circuit court's question, CCRC's only concern was the issue of conflict-free counsel. CCRC also conceded that no new grounds existed to arguably support the alleged conflict-free counsel claim, an issue which the circuit court previously addressed and denied. Despite the circuit court's specific request for CCRC's input, no challenge was ever raised concerning the adequacy of the Faretta inquiry or otherwise regarding the manner or substance of the trial court's treatment of this issue. Assuming that the current challenge to the adequacy of the circuit court's Faretta inquiry is properly before us, the claim is without merit. The following excerpts from the Faretta inquiry demonstrate the thoroughness of the trial court's inquiry: THE COURT: Okay. As I go through this, I'm going to talk to you a little bit about some of the advantages and disadvantages of representing yourself. You obviously have put in your motion that you're aware of that, and you're quite aware of all the discussions of the disadvantage of representing yourself, right? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. In your motion, I don't have it in front of me, but I remember when I read it you have adopted a lot of what CCRC filed on your behalf, and then you put some other stuff with it, right? That's my recollection. I may be wrong on that. THE DEFENDANT: No, your Honor. THE COURT: You did not? THE DEFENDANT: No. What CCRC claims and my claims are different, in conflict. Two motion, but we all different grounds, different arguments. THE COURT: Okay. If in your motion there are any, what we will call legal claimsnot factual claims; I am innocent, this should have been done, the hair isn't mine, factual things. If there are any legal issues raised, constitutionality of the death penalty, Caldwell issues, all those things CCRC may tend to raise in the State court hoping to obtain perhaps relief in a Federal court, those claims oftentimes have to be raised in the State court to get relief in the Federal court. Do you understand that? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. And do you understand that if you are not successful in the State court, you may have a right to have a hearing on certain things in the Federal courts? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. You may find that if certain things weren't done or raised in the State court, that you can't raise them in the Federal court and, therefore, they're gone. THE DEFENDANT: I understand that. THE COURT: You understand that? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honor. THE COURT: And do you understand one of the problems with representing yourself at this stage, in a complex case like this, where the death penalty has been imposed, is that CCRC is usually up on things; they go to seminars, talk about those issues. We call them hot topics sometimes in seminars, things that it is believed that perhaps the Federal courts are going to take a look at and things that are probably dead issues and things that may be coming up on the horizon, is my terminology. But they will raise things that are pretty well settled in the State of Florida that they know they're going to lose here, because they're trying to preserve them for Federal review, hoping that they can get relief either in a District Court, Federal District Court, Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals or the United States Supreme Court. THE DEFENDANT: Yes, ma'am, I'm aware of that, your Honor. THE COURT: Do you understand you may be at a disadvantage there because you would not have any way of having been to those seminars and know what those topics are? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honor. THE COURT: And do you understand that the Federal court, just like I can't give you any special privileges if you elect to represent yourself, neither will they? So if you had to raise something here to raise it in Federal court and you don't, and I let you represent yourself, they're going to say, just like as if you were represented by a lawyer, it's waived. Do you understand that? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, ma'am. THE COURT: Can't be raised. Might be valid, but it can't be raised because Mr. McDonald chose to represent himself in State court and he didn't raise it. Do you understand that? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. That's one of the disadvantages. Do you agree with that? Right? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. As I was reading through the petition that you had filed in the Supreme Courtand I have not read your motion for postconviction relief in some time, but I did receive what you filed in the Supreme Courtit appears to me as if you're challenging or saying you want to challenge some things like DNA, Motions to Suppress, expert witnesses, hair analysis, this type of thing. Is that true? Is that some of the stuff you want to challenge? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Do you realize that you, as kind of a person with training, but not as much training as your lawyer, are at a certain disadvantage in kind of going toe to toe with an expert who supposedly is an expert in his or her field? THE DEFENDANT: Repeat the question, your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Do you understand you may be at a disadvantage if in fact I grant you a hearing and you or the State calls an expert witness in the field of DNA, which is pretty technical, and you are representing yourself as your own lawyer, that you may be at a disadvantage in being able to challenge him on cross examination because you simply will not be as up on DNA expertise as a lawyer would be? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Do you understand that you would not be as knowledgeable as a trained lawyer would be on the rules of evidence? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, ma'am. THE COURT: And, therefore, the State may ask a question or a series of questions or go into a certain area that they may not be entitled to, but you wouldn't know necessarily to object; you might, but you wouldn't be as trained in those areas as a lawyer would be. You understand that? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Okay. Now I'm going to read you some of the stuff they want me to read to you, okay? So listen carefully. It is almost always unwise to represent yourself in court. I'm telling you that. Let me tell you a few of the disadvantages of representing yourself in court. Do you understand that you will not get any special treatment from this court or any other court just because you are representing yourself? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honor, I understand that. . . . . THE COURT: Okay. This apparently is the ultimate question here, and I'm going to once again read it just the way they've got it: Having been advised of your right to counsel, do you understand you have the right to counsel? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, ma'am. THE COURT: You understand I have told you as much as I can the advantages of having counsel? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honor. THE COURT: And the disadvantages of representing yourself? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honor. THE COURT: The dangers of proceeding without counsel? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honor. THE COURT: You know the nature and possible consequences if you do? In other words, you are on death row and you're fighting for your life. You understand that? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honor. THE COURT: Are you certain that you want to represent yourself and not have a lawyer represent you? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honor. THE COURT: You do understandI mean, as I said, you and I have been together in court many times over the course of many days, so it just seems kind of silly to ask it: You do understand that you have received a death sentence and in the event that you are not successful at one of these stages, that you will have a death sentence carried out? You understand that? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honor. THE COURT: You know what's at stake here, quite clearly, right? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Does the State have any questions? MS. KING: No, your Honor. THE COURT: Correct me if I'm wrong, Miss King, but my recollection of the last time I read the law or was in a seminar where this was discussed, no matter howI mean, I'm going to tell you in the strongest terms possible, Mr. McDonald, I really wish you wouldn't do this, because I think it's dangerous. I think you would receive better representation from a lawyer. I think you have a better chance of succeeding if you had a lawyer. And II don't want to just keep pounding on this, but I'm not saying this because I'd just as soon deal with a lawyer as deal with you, I mean it. Do you understand that? THE DEFENDANT: Your Honor, counsel here, I respect hishis action. However, the motion that counsel prepared is motion that he prepared for postconviction relief. I disagree with the claim as argument. Now, if he can work with me, work with me with my claims, it be good. But his claim is what bother me. He try to demonstrate to this court on my behalf, which I object to. THE COURT: Thatthat we kind of went through last time. THE DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honor. THE COURT: In other words, you had a conflict, you and he. You and I talked about it, I ruled there wasn't a conflict. THE DEFENDANT: Yes. THE COURT: You're appealing that ruling, so we're kind of past that. THE DEFENDANT: Okay, your Honor. THE COURT: So I guess what I'm suggesting to you is, do you understand I am telling you in the strongest possible terms, I've got nothingI've got nothing against you personally, I'm dealing within a legal system here, but I'm telling you as judge to another human being in this courtroom, I think it is a huge mistake for you to represent yourself in a case that carries the death sentence. Do you understand that? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honor. THE COURT: All right. And you still wish to do that? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honor. We conclude that after McDonald requested to represent himself during postconviction proceedings, the circuit court went above and beyond what is required under the dictates of Faretta. [6] After reviewing the transcript, which consisted of over fifty pages, we recognize that the circuit court only reluctantly allowed McDonald to represent himself during the postconviction proceedings. Therefore, we deny CCRC's claim that the court did not conduct an adequate Faretta inquiry. Further, because CCRC made no other arguments in the trial court contesting McDonald's self-representation, we decline to address any arguments now asserted by CCRC for the first time on appeal.