Supreme Court of Florida· 12/16/2004

Weaver v. State

Citations

894 So. 2d 178
2004 WL 2922143

How courts have described this case

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

recognizing that the purpose behind the Faretta inquiry is to determine whether the defendant is competent to waive his right to counsel, \not whether [the defendant] is competent to provide an adequate defense\
noting that defendant’s “argument that the trial court erred in ordering the use of a stun belt is especially weak in light of his pro se status”
finding that where a “trial court decides that court-appointed counsel is providing adequate representation, the court does not violate an indigent defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights if it requires him to keep the original court-appointed lawyer or represent himself.”
\A stun belt's potential for prejudice must be measured against other alternative forms of restraint and whether these alternatives are less prejudicial or viable.\
“A [trial] court’s decision involving withdrawal or discharge of counsel is subject to review for abuse of discretion.”
“A defendant who persists in discharging competent counsel after being informed that he is not entitled to substitute counsel is presumed to be unequivocally exercising his right of self-representation.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Per Curiam

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

41 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

55 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.