MOORE v. STATE (2026)

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.”).

PER CURIAM.