Drew v. State — Pro se prohibition petition dismissed as unauthorized while petitioner was represented by counsel

Case
Charlie Drew v. State of Florida
Court
Florida First District Court of Appeal
Judge
Roberts; Bilbrey; Nordby
Date Decided
September 23, 2026
Docket No.
1D2026-1221
Topics
Criminal Procedure; Pro Se Filings; Writ of Prohibition
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Charlie Drew filed a pro se petition for a writ of prohibition in the Florida First District Court of Appeal. The matter was an original proceeding.

At the time of the filing, Drew was represented by counsel. The State of Florida made no appearance in the proceeding.

The Court’s Holding

The court dismissed Drew’s petition as unauthorized. It relied on Logan v. State, 846 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 2003), which generally bars a represented criminal defendant from proceeding pro se.

Because Drew sought to file the petition on his own while represented by counsel, the court did not address the merits of his request for prohibition.

Key Takeaways

  • A criminal defendant generally may not proceed pro se while represented by counsel.
  • An appellate court may dismiss a represented defendant’s independently filed petition as unauthorized.
  • The dismissal resolved the matter on a procedural ground without reaching the petition’s merits.

Why It Matters

The decision reinforces Florida’s rule against hybrid representation in criminal matters. Defendants who have counsel generally must present requests for appellate or extraordinary-writ relief through that counsel rather than filing separately on their own behalf.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top