Carter v. State

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

Appellant’s pro se motion for rehearing and clarification is hereby stricken because appellant does not have the right to file motions pro se when he is represented simultaneously in this appeal by counsel. See State v. Tait, 387 So.2d 338 (Fla.1980); Whitfield v. State, 517 So.2d 23 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)(citing Hooks v. State, 253 So.2d 424 (Fla.1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 1044, 92 S.Ct. 1330, 31 L.Ed.2d 587 (1972)), rev. denied, 525 So.2d 881 (Fla.1988). Even if appellant’s motion could be entertained, it would have to be denied because appellant is alleging that his…