Carliovis Bandera-Valier v. State of Florida

── Carliovis Bandera-Valier v. State of Florida ── Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida Date: April 24, 2026 Category: General SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________ Case No. 6D2024-1801 Lower Tribunal No. 2022-CF-1249 _____________________________ CARLIOVIS BANDERA-VALIER, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. _____________________________ Appeal from the Circuit Court for Charlotte County. Shannon H. McFee, Judge. April 24, 2026 KAMOUTSAS, J. Carliovis Bandera-Valier (Bandera-Valier) appeals the trial court’s order revoking his probation and imposing a five-year prison sentence on grounds that the trial court failed to conduct an adequate Faretta 1 inquiry at the violation of probation hearing and renew an offer of counsel prior to sentencing in compliance with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.111(d)(5). We affirm the trial court’s order revoking 1 Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975). probation but reverse and remand for a new sentencing with a renewed offer of counsel, and in doing so, we certify conflict with the Fifth District’s decision in Harris v. State, 687 So. 2d 29, 30 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). Bandera-Valier was arrested for stealing five hundred gift cards from Walmart. He was sentenced to jail time followed by probation. Six months into his probation, Bandera-Valier was charged with violating his probation by leaving his county of residence without first obtaining the consent of his probation officer and for driving under the influence. Bandera-Valier was appointed an attorney. On May 14, 2024, the case had been set for a plea on his probation violation, but instead, Bandera-Valier refused to enter a plea, claimed ineffective assistance of counsel, and requested alternate counsel. After hearing testimony, the trial court denied the motion and advised Bandera-Valier that he had the right to represent himself. The trial court thereafter made the following written findings: The Defendant indicated that he did wish to represent himself, so a Faretta Hearing was conducted and the Court finds that the Defendant has knowingly and intelligently waived his right to court appointed counsel and thus the Public Defender’s Office is relieved from further responsibility in this case and the Defendant shall be permitted to represent himself. On July 23, 2024, the violation of probation hearing took place, and the trial court asked Bandera-Valier whether he intended to continue representing himself. Bandera-Valier confirmed he intended to proceed without counsel. After hearing testimony from the State’s three witnesses, the trial court ruled that Bandera-Valier 2 had violated the conditions of his probation. The trial court provided Bandera-Valier with an opportunity to speak on the issue of sentencing but did not renew the offer of assistance of counsel. Based in part on Bandera-Valier’s prior criminal history and new arrest on probation, the trial court imposed a five-year sentence. Bandera-Valier argues that the trial court erred by failing to conduct an adequate Faretta inquiry at the beginning of the violation of probation hearing on July 23, 2024. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.111(d)(2) provides as follows: A defendant shall not be considered to have waived the assistance of counsel until the entire process of offering counsel has been completed and a thorough inquiry has been made into both the accused’s comprehension of that offer and the accused’s capacity to make a knowing and i