United States District Court, S.D. Florida
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
BLOOM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CAUSE is before the Court upon the Report and
Recommendations of the Honorable Lisette M. Reid, ECF No.
 (“Report”). On September 4, 2019, Judge Reid
issued the Report recommending that the Petition for Habeas
Corpus Relief, ECF No.  (“Petition”), be
denied on the merits, that the requested evidentiary hearing
be denied, and that a certificate of appealability be denied
and the case be closed. ECF No.  at 29. The Report
further advised that any objections to the Report's
findings were due within fourteen days of receipt of the
has timely filed an objection to the Report. ECF No. 
(“Objection”). This Court has conducted a de
novo review of the portions of the Report to which
Petitioner has objected, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(C), and the remainder of the Report for clear
error, and finds that the Objection is without merit and is
therefore overruled. Taylor v. Cardiovascular
Specialists, P.C., 4 F.Supp.3d 1374, 1377 (N.D.Ga. 2014)
(citing United States v. Slay, 714 F.2d 1093, 1095
(11th Cir. 1983)). The Court first notes that
Petitioner's Objection is improper, as it further
attempts to expand on arguments originally raised in the
Petition and considered by the Magistrate Judge, based on
Petitioner's disagreement with the Report's findings.
Specifically, Petitioner's Objection attempts to reassert
the same arguments originally raised in the Petition
regarding the trial court's allegedly improper
application of Farretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806
review, this Objection merely expands upon and reframes the
arguments already made and considered by the Magistrate Judge
in her Report, or simply disagrees with the Report's
conclusion. “It is improper for an objecting party to .
. . submit  papers to a district court which are nothing
more than a rehashing of the same arguments and positions
taken in the original papers submitted to the Magistrate
Judge. Clearly, parties are not to be afforded a
‘second bite at the apple' when they file
objections to a [Report and Recommendations].”
Marlite, Inc. v. Eckenrod, No. 10-23641-CIV, 2012 WL
3614212, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 21, 2012) (quoting Camardo
v. Gen. Motors Hourly-Rate Emps. Pension Plan, 806
F.Supp. 380, 382 (W.D.N.Y. 1992)). Nevertheless, this
Objection has been considered below and is overruled.
particular, Petitioner objects to the Report's
recommendation to deny Ground One, which asserts that the
trial court improperly conducted a Farretta hearing,
focusing its inquiries on whether Petitioner was competent to
represent himself, and deprived Petitioner of his right to
self-representation. ECF No. . The Report's
recommendation as to Ground One was based upon the equivocal
statements Petitioner made about his request to represent
himself during the course of the trial court's
Farretta inquiries. ECF No.  at 17-19. In his
Objection, Petitioner argues that the Report ignores the
three prior clear and unequivocal requests Petitioner made
during the Farretta hearing. ECF No.  at 3-5.
Judge Reid's Report, however, correctly explains the
procedures surrounding requests to self-represent. ECF No.
 at 15-19. To invoke the right of self-representation, a
defendant must “clearly and unequivocally”
request to do so in a manner that is “understandable to
the trial court by the reasonable person standard.”
Stano v. Dugger, 921 F.2d 1125, 1144 (11th Cir.
1991); ECF No.  at 15-16. When presented with such a
clear and unequivocal request for self-representation, a
trial court then must conduct a Farretta hearing to
determine whether the defendant knowingly, competently, and
intelligently chooses to waive the traditional benefits
associated with the right to counsel, despite the dangers and
disadvantages of self-representation. See Farretta,
422 U.S. at 835; ECF No.  at 15. In determining whether a
defendant is making a knowing and voluntary waiver of
counsel, the trial court's Farretta inquiries
should consider numerous factors. Critically, even after
making a clear request to self-represent, if a defendant
later makes equivocal statements about his request,
“the Farretta inquiry should stop and the
opportunity to proceed without counsel should be
denied.” ECF No.  at 16; Brown v.
Wainwright, 665 F.2d 607, 611 (Former 5th Cir. 1982)
(“Even if defendant requests to represent himself,
however, the right may be waived through defendant's
subsequent conduct indicating he is vacillating on the issue
or has abandoned his request altogether.”). Thus, the
Report clearly and correctly set forth the basis for its
recommendation to deny Ground One. Therefore,
Petitioner's Objection is without merit and is overruled.
further requests that this Court grant his request for an
evidentiary hearing so that he may further support his
claims. ECF No.  at 8. However, the Petitioner has failed
to identify any factual dispute in existence. Thus, the Court
concludes that an evidentiary hearing is not necessary to
resolve the Petitioner's constitutional claims.
Petitioner objects to the Magistrate Judge's conclusion
that Petitioner is not entitled to a certificate of
appealability. Id. at 8. Because the Court agrees
with Judge Reid's analysis and conclusions, and further
determines that Petitioner's Objection is without merit,
the Court agrees that a certificate of appealability should
not be issued.
Court has conducted a de novo review of Judge
Reid's Report, the record, and the applicable law, and is
otherwise fully advised. See Williams v. McNeil, 557
F.3d 1287, 1291 (11th Cir. 2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)). Upon review of the record and the Report, the
Court finds Judge Reid's Report to be well reasoned and
correct. The Court agrees with the analysis in Judge
Reid's Report and concludes that Plaintiff's Petition
must be dismissed for the reasons explained therein.
it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
Judge Reid's Report and Recommendations, ECF No.
, is ADOPTED.
Petitioner's Objection, ECF No. , is
OVERRULED. The request for an evidentiary
hearing is DENIED.
Petition for Habeas Corpus Relief, ECF No.
, is DENIED. No. Certificate of
Appealability shall be issued.
the extent not otherwise disposed of, any scheduled hearings
are CANCELED, all pending motions are
DENIED as moot, and all deadlines are
Clerk of Court is directed to CL ...