Background
Leah Melissa Gibson filed a pro se petition for a writ of prohibition in the Florida First District Court of Appeal. The petition arose as an original proceeding against the State of Florida.
Gibson was represented by counsel in her criminal case. The State made no appearance in the appellate proceeding.
The Court’s Holding
The First District dismissed Gibson’s petition as unauthorized. Relying on Logan v. State, 846 So. 2d 472, 479 (Fla. 2003), the court explained that a criminal defendant generally cannot proceed pro se while represented by counsel.
The court did not address the substantive merits of the requested writ. Judges Rowe, Kelsey, and Winokur concurred in the per curiam disposition.
Key Takeaways
- A represented criminal defendant generally may not file separate pro se submissions.
- The court treated Gibson’s petition as unauthorized and dismissed it without reaching the merits.
- Seeking an extraordinary writ does not avoid the general restriction on simultaneous representation by counsel and self-representation.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces Florida’s rule against hybrid representation in criminal proceedings. When counsel represents a defendant, a separately filed pro se extraordinary-writ petition may be dismissed as unauthorized before the appellate court considers its substance.