State v. Roberts

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• “We agree that under normal circumstances, rule 3.111(d)(5) requires a trial court to advise a pro se defendant of the right to counsel at each subsequent stage of trial. However, to apply the rule strictly in this case would produce an absurd result.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

11 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Ault v. State
  Supreme Court of Florida· 2010-09-30· cited 53×
• Knight v. State
  Supreme Court of Florida· 2000-11-02· cited 28×
• Mincey v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1996-12-02· cited 13×
• Boyd v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2010-10-20· cited 9×
• Brown v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2013-05-22· cited 6×
• Smith v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1996-07-10· cited 2×
• Eady v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1997-03-25· cited 1×
• Hall v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1997-03-19
• Norman v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1997-10-01
• Goodrich v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1998-11-18
• Carliovis Bandera-Valier v. State of Florida
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2026-04-24

Cites

6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Faretta v. California
  Supreme Court· 1975-06-30· cited 11,585×
• Hardwick v. State
  Supreme Court of Florida· 1988-02-04· cited 198×
• Williford v. United States
  Supreme Court· 1984-10-09· cited 152×
• Jones v. State
  Supreme Court of Florida· 1984-03-29· cited 82×
• Watts v. State
  Supreme Court of Florida· 1992-01-02· cited 44×
• Roberts v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1995-05-18· cited 1×