Read the opinion (PDF): Download the opinion (PDF)
If a defendant clearly asks to represent himself at a violation hearing, the judge has to hold a Faretta hearing first. The Sixth District Court of Appeal said so on October 16, 2026, in Johnson v. State, No. 6D2024-2661, and reversed a twelve-year sentence for violating community control.
The case. Elijah Johnson was allowed a belated appeal from an Orange County order that revoked his community control and sentenced him to twelve years in prison. He argued that the trial judge committed fundamental error by failing to hold a hearing on his request to represent himself.
What happened. After the judge denied Johnson’s request to replace his lawyer, this exchange followed, as the opinion quotes it:
THE DEFENDANT: So I can’t represent myself? THE COURT: No, sir.
Later Johnson said, “I’m ready to be pro se, sir,” and then, “Defend myself. Yeah, defend myself.” The judge asked what training he had and whether he had ever been to law school, then said, “I’m gonna deny your request to defend yourself and your Nelson hearing.” The case went to the violation hearing, where the judge found Johnson in violation and imposed the twelve years.
The ruling. Johnson never objected to the missing Faretta hearing. That did not matter. The court said a deficient Faretta inquiry is fundamental error that can be raised for the first time on appeal, citing Hooks v. State, 236 So. 3d 1122 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017). It quoted the Florida Supreme Court in McCray v. State, 71 So. 3d 848 (Fla. 2011): “a trial court’s failure to take the preliminary step of holding a hearing on a defendant’s unequivocal pro se request results in per se reversible error.”
The court gave these reasons: – The Sixth Amendment gives a right of self-representation (Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975)), and the right applies at probation violation hearings. The court cited Evans v. State, 427 So. 3d 624 (Fla. 3d DCA 2026), which found reversible error when a judge failed to hold a Faretta inquiry before a violation hearing. – The hearing is triggered only by an unequivocal request. The court compared Johnson’s words with the statements held unequivocal in Evans (“I want to represent myself”) and Laramee v. State, 90 So. 3d 341 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012). – The trial court understood it as a request to represent himself, the opinion says, because the court explicitly denied it.
The court reversed the revocation order and the sentence and sent the case back for a Faretta hearing.
Reading it (the author’s, not the court’s). The opinion orders a hearing and does not say how that hearing should come out. It does not say what a judge may do after a proper hearing, and it does not address what counts as an equivocal request. The words that mattered here were a direct “I’m ready to be pro se” and “defend myself.”
Panel: Judges Wozniak (author), Stargel and Nardella. The opinion is not final until any timely motion for rehearing is decided.
Source: Johnson v. State, No. 6D2024-2661 (Fla. 6th DCA Oct. 16, 2026). This article is general information, not legal advice.