ROY CLIFTON SWAFFORD, PETITIONER,
v.
HARRY K. SINGLETARY, JR., ETC., 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.
The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied because the attorney's involvement was minimal and the petitioner could not have been prejudiced.
Petitioner, a death row inmate, sought a writ of habeas corpus alleging his trial attorney had a conflict of interest by also serving as a special dep…
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Roy Swafford, a prisoner on death row, petitions this Court for writ of habeas corpus,1 alleging that one of his trial attorneys, Howard Pearl, had a conflict of interest because he was also a special deputy sheriff while he represented Swafford. Several other prisoners who had been represented by Pearl have raised this same issue, and we have remanded for evidentiary hearings on their claim. Wright v. State, 581 So. 2d 882 (Fla.1991); Herring v. State, 580 So. 2d 135 (Fla.1991); Harich v. State, 542 So. 2d 980 (Fla.1989).2 Notwithstanding the fact that this claim should be raised in the trial court through a motion for postconviction relief,3 we find that no relief is warranted. Swafford raised this issue in a postconviction motion, and the trial court denied it without an evidentiary hearing. On appeal we affirmed because Pearl’s “involvement in the case was minimal and Swafford could not have been prejudiced.” Swafford v. Dugger, 569 So. 2d 1264, 1267 (Fla.1990). Pearl’s minimal participation in Swafford’s representation distinguishes this case from Wright, Herring, and Harich. Therefore, we find no merit in Swafford’s claim and deny his petition.
It is so ordered.
SHAW, C.J., and OVERTON, MCDONALD, BARKETT, GRIMES, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur. . We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(9), Fla. Const. . This Court affirmed the trial court’s holding, after an evidentiary hearing, that Pearl had not had a conflict of interest when representing Harich. Harich v. State, 573 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 1990), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Apr. 23, 1991) (no. 90-7789).
. Resolution of the merits of this issue would require an evidentiary hearing. Therefore, it is more properly raised in the trial court and is not cognizable in a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed with this Court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Swafford v. State, 125 So. 3d 760 (Fla. 2013)…ee, e.g., Swafford v. Dugger, 569 So. 2d 1264 (Fla.1990) (denying the petition for writ of habeas corpus, affirming the trial court’s denial of his initial motion for postconviction relief, and denying his stay of execution); Swafford v. Singletary, 584 So. 2d 5 (Fla.1991) (denying Swafford’s petition for writ of habeas corpus); Swafford v. State, 636 So. 2d 1309 (Fla.1994) (affirming the trial court’s denial of his second motion for postconviction relief); Swafford v. State, 828 So. 2d 966 (Fla.2002) (affi…
-
Swafford v. State, 679 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 1996)…a- stay of execution. Swafford’s appeal to the Eleventh Circuit was held in abeyance while he continued to seek relief in the state courts. In May 1991, Swafford filed a second habeas petition in this Court, which we denied. Swafford v. Singletary, 584 So. 2d 5 (Fla.1991). He then filed a second 3.850 motion in November 1991. In addition to appealing its denial, he filed a motion to relinquish jurisdiction and hold appeal in abeyance. The appeal was based on new information he obtained regarding the status…
-
Swafford v. State, 828 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 2002)…d 1264, 1267 (Fla.1990). Pearl’s minimal participation in Swafford’s representation distinguishes this case from [other cases involving a similar claim]. Therefore, we find no merit in Swafford’s claim and deny his petition. Swafford v. Singletary, 584 So. 2d 5 (Fla.1991) (citations and footnote omitted). Swafford filed a second rule 3.850 motion in November 1991. In that motion, Swafford raised the following claims: (1) violation of chapter 119, Florida Statutes (1989); (2) a violation of Brady v. Maryla…
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
- Swafford v. Dugger, 569 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 1990)
- Harich v. State, 542 So. 2d 980 (Fla. 1989)
- Harich v. State, 573 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 1990)
- Herring v. State, 580 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 1991)
- Wright v. State, 581 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 1991)