that once a defendant asserts the right of self-representation, the court must make an appropriate inquiry to determine whether the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived the right to counsel.” Waterhouse v. State, 596 So.2d 1008, 1014 (Fla.1992); see also State v. Roberts, 677 So.2d 264, 265 (Fla.1996) (explaining that Faretta inquiries are required where a defendant has made an unequivocal request for self-representation). In addition, while a defendant does not have a right to “hybrid” representation, Faretta warnings are required whenever the trial court permits a defendant to undertake a portion of his defense that is a “core function” of a lawyer. See Brooks v. State, 703 So.2d 504, 505-06 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); see also Madison v. State, 948 So.2d 975 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (<HOLDING>). Core functions of a defense lawyer in a
holding trial court abused its discretion by refusing to allow questions regarding victims status as a child holding that the relevant inquiry is not whether the court has discretion to facilitate notice but whether this is an appropriate case in which to exercise discretion holding that the trial court should conduct a hearing to allow the parties to be heard including the defendant in person and to allow presentation of additional evidence before sentencing holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow the withdrawal of the juiy trial waiver holding that the trial court does not possess the discretion to allow hybrid representation without first conducting a faretta inquiry