FREDDY LEE WRIGHT AND THEODORE JEROME PAGE, APPELLANTS,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court denied the State's motion to dismiss an appeal raising a Sixth Amendment ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on joint representation of co-defendants by the same attorney. Although such claims are ordinarily not preserved for direct appeal without a trial court objection, an exception applies in conflict-of-interest cases where appellants can demonstrate actual conflict on the record.
Appellants may raise the ineffective assistance claim on direct appeal even without a trial court objection if they can demonstrate actual conflict of interest or prejudice appears in the record. While joint representation of co-defendants is not per se reversible error, denying a motion for separate representation where conflicting interests exist, or allowing joint representation to continue despite actual conflict, is reversible error.
[1] The issue of ineffective assistance of counsel arising from a conflict of interests between co-defendants represented by the same attorney may be raised on direct appeal,…
[2] Denial of a motion for separate representation when a risk of conflicting interests exists between co-defendants is reversible error.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“To deny a motion for separate representation, where a risk of conflicting interests exists, is reversible error.”
Establishes the standard that denial of separate representation when conflict exists is reversible error, citing Holloway v. Arkansas
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants Freddy Lee Wright and Theodore Jerome Page were tried jointly and represented by the same attorney. No objection to the joint representatio…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Joint Representation cases and more on FLexlaw
ORFINGER, Chief Judge.
The only issue raised by appellants is that they “were denied their Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel by being jointly tried and represented by the same attorney where their interests were in conflict.” The State moves to dismiss the appeal, contending that the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel cannot be raised on direct appeal, but should be raised by petition pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The State further points out that the record fails to show any objection in the trial court to the joint representation, so that in any event, the issue has not been preserved for appeal. For the reasons discussed, we deny the motion.
It is true, as urged by the State, that ordinarily the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel cannot be raised for the first time on a direct appeal from a judgment of conviction because it is not a matter that has been presented to and ruled on by the trial court. State v. Barber, 301 So. 2d 7 (Fla.1974). However, this rule has not been applied to cases where the claim of ineffectiveness arises from a conflict of interests between co-defendants represented by the same attorney. How the issue is presented on appeal depends on whether or not an objection to such joint representation was made below.
The variation of the rule in alleged conflict cases has been stated by the Supreme Court in Foster v. State, 387 So. 2d 344 (Fla.1980), thusly:
To deny a motion for separate representation, where a risk of conflicting interests exists, is reversible error. Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475, 98 S.Ct. 1173, 55 L.Ed.2d 426 (1978). Even in the absence of an objection or motion below, however, where actual conflict of interest or prejudice to the appellant is shown, the court’s action in making the joint appointment and allowing the joint representation to continue is reversible error. Id. at 345.
There apparently was no motion made below either objecting to the joint representation, requesting leave to withdraw from one representation or requesting the appointment of other counsel for the co-defendant. There is no rule in Florida that joint representation of co-defendants is per se reversible error. See Belton v. State, 217 So. 2d 97 (Fla.1968); Washington v. State, 419 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). However, even in the absence of an objection, appellants have the right to demonstrate, if they can, that actual conflict appears in the record. Foster, supra; Washington, supra; and this they are attempting to do.
The motion to dismiss the appeal is therefore
DENIED.
FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr. and SHARP, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Shawanna Dennis v. State, 696 So. 2d 1280 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…la. 4th DCA 1985)(in-effectiveness based on defense counsel’s failure to object to repeated prosecutorial improprieties), cert. denied, 480 So. 2d 1296 (Fla.1985); Washington v. State, 419 So. 2d 1100, 1101, n. 3 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Wright v. State, 423 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). As to the remaining issues, we find error only on the point the state concedes. The case must be remanded for the trial court to enter a written order reflecting its decision to sentence Dennis as an adult. See Grayson v. State…
-
Whitaker v. State, 433 So. 2d 1352 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…s the facts giving rise to such a claim are apparent on the face of the record, Stewart v. State, 420 So. 2d 862 (Fla.1982), or conflict of interest or prejudice to the defendant is shown. Foster v. State, 387 So. 2d 344 (Fla.1980); Wright v. State, 423 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Washington v. State, 419 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). After careful consideration of appellant’s arguments on appeal and a thorough reading of the record, we can find nothing which shows ineffective assistance of trial counse…
-
Wright v. State, 442 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)…tate’s motion to dismiss the appeal, holding that the appellant could raise on appeal an issue of ineffective assistance of counsel because of an alleged conflict of interest arising out of joint representation of co-defendants. See Wright v. State, 423 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). No objection to the joint representation of Wright and his co-defendant Page was ever raised in the trial court at any stage of the proceedings. The issue is raised for the first time on appeal. In Wright I, we agreed that the…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475 (U.S. 1978)
- State v. Barber, 301 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 1974)
- Belton v. State, 217 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1968)
- Foster v. State, 387 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 1980)
- Washington v. State, 419 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)