Right-to-self-representation

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The Petitioner unequivocally asserted his right to self-representation as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. As this Court has made explicit, that should have been the end of the matter. The trial court, however, ignored his assertion of this right. The Petitioner fared no better on appeal when the Florida Supreme Court ignored the very nature of the error and applied a perverse and forbidden harmless error analysis. The Petitioner was denied the justice that he was entitled after a ruling that his habeas petition was untimely because he sought to exhaust a claim for federal review based on this Court’s decision in Ring v. Arizona. Despite a welltrodden path to review, the Florida Supreme Court denied relief. The Petitioner seeks a remedy for the clear denial of his right to self-representation and presents two questions for review. 1. Whether the Petitioner’s right to self-representation was violated when the trial court denied the Petitioner’s request to proceed pro se and the Florida Supreme Court affirmed this denial despite the Florida Supreme Court’s decision that the trial court’s inquiry fell short of Faretta, and even its own rule that protected the right to selfrepresentation, then proceeded to apply the factors that this Court has made clear are irrelevant in Godinez v. Moran. 2. Whether the Florida Supreme Court’s most recent decision denying relief from a manifest injustice denied Mr. Sweet’s rights under the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution when the court has the mechanism under Florida law to provide the remedy that Mr. Sweet was always entitled and has treated similarly situated defendants differently? i