CHRISTON MOORE
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
An equivocal or ambiguous reference to an attorney during police questioning does not require law enforcement to cease interrogation, and a trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying an untimely request for a continuance when a defendant seeks to represent himself on the day of trial.
[1] An equivocal or ambiguous assertion of the right to counsel during police interrogation does not require law enforcement to cease questioning.
[2] A trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a defendant's untimely request for a continuance to proceed pro se when the request is made on the day of trial and…
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceChriston Moore was convicted in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court. The appeal concerns whether Moore's statements during police questioning were properl…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Pro Se Representation cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed October 22, 2026.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 3D24-1944
Lower Tribunal No. F17-5267
Christon Moore,
Appellant,
vs.
State of Florida
Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Andrea Wolfson, Judge.
Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Susan S. Lerner, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Daihana Chang Ferrey, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before GORDO, LOBREE and GOODEN, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452, 459 (1994) (declining to “require law enforcement officers to cease questioning immediately upon the making of an ambiguous or equivocal reference to an attorney"); State v. Owen, 696 So. 2d 715, 717–18 (Fla. 1997) (“However, the reasoning of Davis applies when a defendant makes an equivocal assertion of any right under Miranda."); Smith v. State, 411 So. 3d 487, 492– 93 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025) (“When viewed in context, we agree with the trial court that Smith was not asking for a lawyer. This was simply a restatement of his right."); Williams v. State, 415 So. 3d 168, 178–79 (Fla. 2025) (affirming the denial of a continuance where the defendant elected to proceed pro se and reiterating that such defendants assume the attendant risks, including limitations on preparation); Bouie v. State, 559 So. 2d 1113, 1114 (Fla. 1990) ("Granting a continuance is within a trial court's discretion, and the court's ruling will be disturbed only when that discretion has been abused.”); Maret v. State, 605 So. 2d 949, 950 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (“First, we reject the defendant's argument that the trial court denied the defendant his right to self-representation. The defendant's request to represent himself and obtain a continuance made on the day of trial was both untimely and an obvious ploy to avoid going to trial; it was therefore properly denied.").
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (U.S. 1994)
- State v. Owen, 696 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 1997)
- Bouie v. State, 559 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 1990)
- Williams v. State, 415 So. 3d 168 (Fla. 2025)
- Maret v. State, 605 So. 2d 949 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
- Smith v. State, 411 So. 3d 487 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)