against Faret-ta and remanded for further proceedings. The rationale underlying the Faret-ta decision is that the defendant has a constitutional right to conduct his own defense without the benefit of counsel. Id. at 814, 95 S.Ct. 2525. This right includes “the calling and interrogation of favorable witnesses, the cross-examination of adverse witnesses, and the orderly introduction of evidence.” Id. at 818, 95 S.Ct. 2525. If a trial court improperly denies a defendant these rights, the only proper remedy is to have a new proceeding at which the defendant is permitted to exercise them. This necessarily requires a proceeding at which the defendant pro se can call and interrogate witnesses, cross-examine unfavorable witnesses, and introduce evidence. See, e.g., Tennis, 997 So.2d at 379-80 (<HOLDING>); Fleck v. State, 956 So.2d 548, 549 (Fla. 2d
holding that superior court erred in reversing trial courts order granting new trial and remanding for a new trial limited to apportionment of damages holding that the failure to hold a faretta hearing is per se reversible error and reversing the defendants conviction vacating his death sentence and remanding for a new trial holding that defendants waived any challenge to the trial courts failure to hold an evidentiary hearing holding that constructive amendments which are per se reversible under harmless error analysis are also per se reversible under plain error analysis holding the erroneous deprivation of the right to counsel constitutes per se reversible error