Florida District Courts of Appeal, 1995

Hinrichs v. State

Florida District Courts of Appeal · Decided September 13, 1995 · Goderich, Green, Nesbitt

659 So. 2d 1389; 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 9586; 1995 WL 539787 (Southern Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

Hinson v. State of Florida (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2025)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

We find that the trial court properly conducted a Faretta1 hearing and that the defendant was properly advised of the overwhelming disadvantages of self-representation, the seriousness of the charges against him, and the potential sentence that he might face if found guilty. Taylor v. State, 610 So.2d 576, 578 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). At trial, prior to each of the critical stages of the proceedings, the trial court properly complied with Rule 3.111(d), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, and renewed the offer of assistance of counsel to the defendant. However, as the State properly concedes, the trial court failed to renew the offer of assistance of counsel prior to sentencing. Therefore, we affirm the conviction and reverse and remand for resentencing.

Affirmed, in part, reversed, in part, and remanded for resentencing.

. Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 835, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 2541, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975).

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.