Schmidter v. State

Mark Schmidter and Julian Heicklen timely appeal their respective judgments and sentences for indirect criminal contempt of court.1 As to Heicklen, we agree that a reversal is required because the trial court allowed him to represent himself at trial without conducting a Faretta2 inquiry as required by law. See, e.g., State v. Young, 626 So.2d 655 (Fla.1993); McGee v. State, 983 So.2d 1212 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). As for Schmidter, we affirm the judgments in part. While we agree with Schmidter that one of the administrative orders underlying the contempt action was constitutionally infirm, we…