Descault v. State

Florida District Courts of Appeal
Descault v. State, 20 So. 3d 990 (2009)
2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 16002; 34 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 2201
Hawkes, Wolf, Wetherell

Descault v. State

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s conviction. However, as conceded by the State, the trial court did err in failing to conduct a Faret-ta inquiry at appellant’s sentencing hearing. “Sentencing is a crucial stage of a criminal proceeding, so that the offer of assistance of counsel must be renewed then, even if the defendant has previously waived counsel at other stages.” Travis v. State, 969 So.2d 532, 533 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); see also Parker v. State, 539 So.2d 1168, 1169 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Kepner v. State, 911 So.2d 1256, 1258 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Beard v. State, 751 So.2d 61, 62 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Hardy v. State, 655 So.2d 1245, 1247-48 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). We affirm appellant’s convictions but *991 strike his sentence and remand for resen-tencing following a proper Faretta inquiry.

HAWKES, C.J., WOLF and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.

Reference

Full Case Name
Ronald Richard DESCAULT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Cited By
2 cases
Status
Published