FREDDIE 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.
In this appeal of a joint representation case, the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed convictions of two defendants charged with kidnapping, armed robbery, and sexual assault, finding no actual conflict of interest despite their joint counsel despite their joint counsel, even though the issue was raised for the first time on appeal.
The court affirmed the convictions, holding that no actual conflict of interest existed in the record. Although there is no per se rule requiring reversal for joint representation, defendants may raise such issues on appeal if they can demonstrate an actual conflict; here, the defendants' testimony and defense remained consistent throughout, neither was sacrificed for the other, and their interests were not adverse or hostile.
[1] An actual conflict of interest must be demonstrated to establish ineffective assistance of counsel based on joint representation, even in the absence of an objection in t…
[2] A conflict of interest arises when an attorney adduces evidence or advances arguments that are damaging to the cause of a co-defendant whom the attorney also represents.
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“Conflict of interest" has been held to arise when one defendant stands to gain significantly by counsel adducing probative evidence or advancing plausible arguments that are damaging to the cause of a co-defendant whom counsel is also representing.”
Establishes the legal standard for determining when a conflict of interest exists in joint representation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWright and Page picked up a hitchhiking family and forced the husband and daughter out of the car at gunpoint while keeping the wife. Both defendants …
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 Of Co-Defendants cases and more on FLexlaw
ORFINGER, Chief Judge.
In an earlier decision in this case, we denied the State’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 there is no per se rule that requires reversal of a conviction because of joint representation of co-defendants. See Belton v. State, 217 So. 2d 97 (Fla.1968); Washington v. State, 419 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). We further held that even in the absence of objection in the trial court, the defendant might nevertheless point to the record to demonstrate that an actual conflict of interest existed. See Foster v. State, 387 So. 2d 344 (Fla.1980).
An examination of the record discloses no conflict here. Defendants picked up a hitchhiking family and later forced the husband and daughter out of the car at gunpoint, but keeping the wife in the car. Defendants took turns driving, each holding the gun and each sexually assaulting the wife. Both in their individual statements, given on their arrest and at trial, they both testified that Wright had the gun. They both admitted sex with the wife, but both contended that she had consented. Their testimony on how Page was possessed of the wife’s rings was also consistent. Neither testified against the other, and they maintained a common defense throughout the trial.
“Conflict of interest” has been held to arise when one defendant stands to gain significantly by counsel adducing probative evidence or advancing plausible arguments that are damaging to the cause of a co-defendant whom counsel is also representing. Webb v. State, 433 So. 2d 496, 498 (Fla.1983). Wright complains that conflict appears when Page testified that Wright first pointed the gun at the victims. But Wright also testified that he had the gun. Both Page and Wright testified that the victim offered sex for a ride to Pennsylvania, and they both argued consent as a defense. Both stated that the victim gave Wright her rings to pawn for gas money, and that Wright gave them to Page. Neither defendant was sacrificed for the other, nor were their interests adverse or hostile to each other. We find no conflict of interest in the record. The judgments of conviction are therefore
AFFIRMED.
DAUKSCH and COWART, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Uvencia Dixon v. State, 758 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…m of actual conflict will succeed only if the record affirmatively indicates that, due to the joint representation, the co-defendant gained significantly at her expense, and that appellee was damaged by the common defense. See also Wright v. State, 442 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). We have carefully reviewed this record and can find no such damage was inflicted on defendant. Both defendant and Llerena claimed innocence. Defendant testified that she was in the bedroom feeding her children and that she was u…
Authorities Cited
- 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)
- Solomon Webb v. State, 433 So. 2d 496 (Fla. 1983)
- Freddy Lee Wright and Theodore Jerome Page v. State, 423 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)