Davis v. State
An indigent, represented defendant filed a pro se petition for writ of prohibition seeking a stay of prosecution, preservation of evidence, and a Nelson hearing. The First DCA held that while the general rule against hybrid representation normally bars such pro se filings, an exception applies when a defendant is affirmatively seeking to compel a ruling on a pending motion to discharge appointed counsel, and redesignated the petition as one for writ of mandamus on that narrow issue, denying all other requested relief.
Key facts
- An indigent defendant represented by appointed counsel filed a pro se petition for writ of prohibition seeking a stay of prosecution, preservation of evidence, and a Nelson hearing.
- The trial court had not ruled on the defendant's pending motion to discharge appointed counsel.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This opinion clarifies a narrow but recurring procedural question: how an indigent defendant represented by counsel can properly bring a pro se challenge when the trial court has failed to rule on a motion to discharge… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.