MICHAEL JOSEPH DOLAN, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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 appellate court affirmed the denial of a motion to vacate a conviction, holding that an attorney suspended for non-payment of bar dues is not automatically ineffective counsel. The court reasoned that such a suspension, unrelated to disciplinary issues, does not impair the attorney's ability to represent a client.
No, an attorney suspended for non-payment of bar dues is not automatically ineffective. The court declined to adopt a per se rule of ineffectiveness in such circumstances.
[1] A motion to vacate a conviction and sentence is facially insufficient if it fails to allege a legally cognizable claim for relief.
[2] An attorney's suspension from the bar for failure to pay dues, where reinstatement is automatic and ministerial, does not automatically render the attorney per se ineffec…
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“We affirm the trial court's order which denied as facially insufficient the defendant’s Rule 3.850 motion to vacate his conviction and sentence.”
States the appellate court's decision to uphold the lower court's ruling.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant filed a motion to vacate his conviction, arguing he received ineffective assistance of counsel. His court-appointed attorney was suspend…
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 Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
DANIEL S. PEARSON, Judge.
We affirm the trial court's order which denied as facially insufficient the defendant’s Rule 3.850 motion to vacate his conviction and sentence.
The defendant’s motion alleges that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel in that his court-appointed attorney was, throughout the entirety of the representation of the defendant including the trial, suspended as a member of the Florida Bar because of the attorney’s failure to pay required bar dues. Because the defendant claims no other ineffectiveness, he necessarily asks us to adopt a rule that an attorney who acts on behalf of a criminal defendant during critical stages of the proceedings, while suspended from the right to engage in the practice of law because of his failure to pay bar dues, is per se ineffective.
We decline to adopt the rule urged by the defendant. An attorney who is suspended from the Florida Bar for failure to pay the dues required by Article VIII, Florida Bar Integration Rule, is automatically entitled to reinstatement upon the filing of his petition and the payment of the dues. The Florida Bar (In re Steinbach), 427 So. 2d 733 (Fla.1983); Thomson v. The Florida Bar, 260 So. 2d 495 (Fla.1972).
Where, as here, the suspension is unrelated to any disciplinary proceeding and the act of reinstatement is purely ministerial, see Thomson v. The Florida Bar, 260 So. 2d at 497, the suspended status of the attorney simply has no bearing on his ability to effectively represent a criminal defendant. Beto v. Barfield, 391 F. 2d 275 (5th Cir.1968); Johnson v. State, 225 Kan. 458, 590 P. 2d 1082 (1979); Hill v. State, 393 S.W. 2d 901 (Tex.Crim.App.1965).
See also United States v. Hoffman, 733 F. 2d 596 (9th Cir.1984).
We emphasize that we are here “dealing with a person who merely failed to comply with some administrative prerequisite to membership in the Florida Bar,” the person expressly exempted from the holding in Huckelbury v. State, 337 So. 2d 400, 403 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976), upon which the defendant relies.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Hoffman, 733 F.2d 596 (9th Cir. 1984)
- Huckelbury v. State, 337 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)
- Beto v. Barfield, 391 F.2d 275 (5th Cir. 1968)
- Thomson v. THE Florida BAR, 260 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 1972)
- THE Fla. BAR. In re Bradley F. Steinbach, 427 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 1983)