JOHN T. HARLESS, APPELLANT,
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.
Defendant's motion to discharge appointed counsel based on lack of confidence was properly denied where there was no showing of ineffective assistance and no clear request for self-representation.
A defendant is not entitled to discharge appointed counsel based on personality conflict or lack of confidence absent a showing of ineffective assistance or a clear and unequivocal request for self-representation.
[1] A defendant has no right to choose or discharge appointed counsel based on personality conflict or lack of confidence absent a showing of ineffective assistance of counse…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“a defendant is not entitled to appointed counsel of his choice”
Court citing Frazier v. State regarding the right to choose appointed counsel
Harless, represented by appointed public defender, moved to discharge counsel due to lack of confidence in the public defender's office, characterizin…
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 Self-Representation cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Judge.
A hearing was held before the trial court at which the appointed public defender, at the behest of his client, the defendant Harless, moved to withdraw as counsel because Harless had a lack of confidence in the office of the public defender. The trial judge saw the problem merely as a “personality conflict” between Harless and a particular public defender, and urged that another assistant handle this case. The assistant handling the case correctly pointed out to the trial judge that, as an administrative matter, their office simply could not function if their clients could pick and choose which assistant public defender, or which special public defender, they might prefer. The public defender’s position is consistent with our opinion in Frazier v. State, 453 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), wherein we held that a defendant is not entitled to appointed counsel of his choice. Once the trial judge concludes that there is no showing of ineffective counsel, a motion to discharge that counsel should be denied — absent a clear and unequivocal request for self-representation. See Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975). There was no such clear and unequivocal request in this case. See Hunt v. State, 613 So. 2d 893 (Fla.1992); Watts v. State, 593 So. 2d 198 (Fla.1992); Capehart v. State, 583 So. 2d 1009 (Fla.1991).
The trial judge was correct in his ultimate denial of the defendant’s motion to discharge.
AFFIRMED.
W. SHARP and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1975)
- Watts v. State, 593 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 1992)
- Capehart v. State, 583 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 1991)
- Deidre Michelle Hunt v. State, 613 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 1992)
- Frazier v. State, 453 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)