Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
ERSKINE MCKINLEY v. STATE OF FLORIDA
Citation: 261 So. 3d 599Docket: 17-2822
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; January 8, 2019; Florida; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Erskine James McKinley, Jr. appeals his convictions for two counts of attempted first-degree murder with a firearm. He raises four issues, with three being affirmed without comment. The primary issue concerns the trial court's failure to address McKinley's requests to represent himself. During voir dire, McKinley explicitly expressed his desire to represent himself, stating, “I want to represent myself,” and reiterated this request before opening statements. Despite his clear statements, the court concluded that McKinley had not made an unequivocal request for self-representation and proceeded with the trial. The court's oversight is significant as the Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant's right to self-representation, necessitating a hearing to assess whether a defendant is knowingly waiving counsel. The State contended that McKinley’s request was not unequivocal; however, the court found that McKinley’s repeated assertions demonstrated a clear intention to proceed pro se. According to established case law, once a defendant makes an unequivocal request, the trial court must conduct a Faretta hearing to determine if the waiver of the right to counsel is informed. The failure to conduct such a hearing when an unequivocal request is made constitutes reversible error and is not subject to harmless error analysis. Consequently, the court reversed McKinley’s convictions and remanded the case for a new trial, underscoring the necessity of adhering to the procedural rights afforded to defendants.