STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
ROBERT LEE DIXON, RESPONDENT
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.
Florida Supreme Court reversed the trial court's denial of the state's motion to disqualify Norman Cannella, a former assistant state attorney, from representing Robert Lee Dixon in a first-degree murder and armed robbery case. The court held that Cannella's participation in obtaining the indictment constituted prohibited involvement that warranted disqualification.
The court held that Cannella must be disqualified from representing Dixon. His signing of the indictment as legal adviser to the grand jury constitutes the type of participation, investigation, and obtaining of advantage prohibited by the rules. Additionally, his possible presence during grand jury proceedings could result in violations of statutory provisions regarding disclosure of grand jury information.
[1] A former prosecutor is disqualified from representing a defendant if the prosecutor participated in the investigation leading to the criminal charge, was involved in the…
[2] Signing a defendant's indictment as a legal advisor to the grand jury constitutes prohibited participation and investigation for the purpose of disqualification.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“the signing of respondent's indictment as legal adviser to the grand jury constitutes the type of participation and investigation and the obtaining of advantage prohibited by Endress”
The court's core holding establishing that Cannella's role in obtaining the indictment was substantial involvement warranting disqualification
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRobert Lee Dixon was charged with first-degree murder and armed robbery. Norman Cannella, a former assistant state attorney, sought to represent Dixon…
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 Attorney Disqualification cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is the third recent occasion for this court to revisit whether Norman Cannella can represent clients who were charged with crimes while Mr. Cannella was employed by the State Attorney’s office.
Petitioner, the state, petitions this court for a writ of certiorari to quash the order denying the state’s motion to disqualify Norman Cannella from representing Robert Lee Dixon, respondent, on first degree murder and armed robbery charges. We grant certiorari.
In the instant case, the state argues that Mr. Cannella’s signing of the respondent’s indictment for these charges demonstrates substantial involvement alluded to in Endress v. Coe,
433 So. 2d 1280 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), and prohibited by Florida Bar Code of Professional Responsibility Disciplinary Rule 9-101(b). The state also contends that section 905.27(1) and (2), Florida Statutes, regarding disclosure of grand jury proceedings will likely be violated by Mr. Cannella if he represents the respondent.
As to petitioner’s first argument, we find that the signing of respondent’s indictment as legal adviser to the grand jury constitutes the type of participation and investigation and the obtaining of advantage prohibited by Endress.
This finding is further reinforced by petitioner’s second argument that Mr. Cannel-la’s possible presence during the grand jury proceedings may result in the violation of section 905.27, Florida Statutes, in an effort to fully represent respondent.
Accordingly, certiorari is granted, the order denying the state’s motion to disqualify is quashed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
HOBSON, A.C.J., and BOARDMAN and DANAHY, JJ., concur. . In Endress, this court stated:
Absent a showing of participation to any extent in the investigation leading to a criminal charge, or some involvement in the case itself, or some advantage gained that would work to the disadvantage of the state, a former assistant state attorney should not be automatically disqualified from acting as defense counsel for a defendant investigated or charged during the time counsel served as an assistant state attorney.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Dixon v. State, 426 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Endress v. COE, 433 So. 2d 1280 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)