Hughes v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided September 11, 1997

Supreme Court of Florida · decided 1997-09-11

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“ONCE A TRIAL COURT HAS DETERMINED THAT A DEFENDANT HAS KNOWINGLY WAIVED HIS OR HER RIGHT TO COUNSEL, MAY THE COURT NONETHELESS REQUIRE THE DEFENDANT TO BE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL BECAUSE OF CONCERN THAT THE DEFENDANT MIGHT BE DEPRIVED OF A FAIR TRIAL IF TRIED WITHOUT SUCH REPRESENTATION?”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Hughes v. State

Relies on 698 So. 2d 248 - State v. Bowen · Hughes v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1997-09-11

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently October 2015

7 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

SHAW, Justice.

¶1We have for review Hughes v. State, 686 So.2d 710 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), wherein the court certified:

Once a trial court has determined that a defendant has knowingly waived his or her right to counsel, may the court nonetheless require the defendant to be represented by counsel because of concern that the defendant might be deprived of a fair trial if tried without such representation?

¶2Id. at 710. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We have since answered this question in the negative. See State v. Bowen, 698 So.2d 248 (Fla. 1997). We quash Hughes.

¶3It is so ordered.

KOGAN, C.J., and OVERTON, GRIMES, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.