LOUIS VANCE ULVANO, 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 court held that the trial court erred in conducting an evidentiary hearing on a post-conviction motion without the defendant or his counsel present.
The defendant filed a post-conviction motion alleging attorney conflict of interest and incompetency. The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing…
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 Conflict Of Interest (Attorney) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, defendant in the trial court, subsequent to his conviction and sentence, filed a Rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure motion alleging his attorney’s conflict of interest and incompetency. The trial court ordered an evidentiary hearing and then proceeded to conduct it without the presence of the defendant or counsel on his behalf. The motion was denied. We find error and reverse for a new hearing.
We recognize that it is not necessary in the first instance for a trial court to appoint counsel for a petitioner who files a Rule 3.850 motion. Graham v. State, 372 So. 2d 1363 (Fla.1979); Hooks v. State, 253 So. 2d 424 (Fla.1971); State v. Weeks, 166 So. 2d 892 (Fla.1964). We also recognize that it is not mandatory that the petitioner/defendant be present at either a preliminary hearing or in some instances an evidentiary hearing. Harrell v. State, 458 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Eby v. State, 306 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975); Bryant v. State, 203 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967). However, in the instant case the unique facts1 relating to the alleged conflict of interest compels us to find that the court erred in not appointing counsel and having the appellant at the evidentiary hearing. We therefore reverse for a new hearing on the Rule 3.850 motion.
Reversed and remanded.
. The alleged conflict of interest arose as follows: In order to pay his privately retained counsel's fee, the defendant deeded to his trial counsel the defendant's one-half interest in a house that he owned jointly with the mother of the victim. This, the defendant contended, ere- ated a compensation agreement in which the mother of the victim (a prosecution witness) was a contributing party to the compensation arrangement.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. State, 489 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…e witnesses. Alfonso v. State, 319 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). Id. at 902. The courts of this State have consistently so held. See State v. Reynolds, 238 So. 2d 598 (Fla.1970); Eby v. State, 306 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975); and Ulvano v. State, 479 So. 2d 809 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Accordingly, as in Harrell, supra, we reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing. The appellant must be afforded an opportunity to be present at the hearing and to participate. REVERSED AND REMANDED. MILLS and WENTWORTH, JJ…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Weeks, 166 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 1964)
- The Petition of Andrew A. Graham v. State, 372 So. 2d 1363 (Fla. 1979)
- Hooks v. State, 253 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 1971)
- Harrell v. State, 458 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- EBY v. State, 306 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)
- Alvester Bryant v. State, 203 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)