Carrick v. State

|14I fully agree with the majority opinion and join in it. There was no clear and definite order requiring appellant to hire an attorney and bring him or her to court and, hence, no contumacious violation of any such order.9 Even had there been such an order, the trial court would have been without “authority” to have entered it “under the circumstances presented here,”10 i.e., the trial court did so simply because appellant was not learned in the law and despite the lack of any showing that appellant was “incompetent” under the standard of Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525,…