DAVID MCPHERSON, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed McPherson's convictions because the trial court failed to conduct a Nelson inquiry before summarily denying his motion to terminate appointed counsel based on claimed conflicts and inadequate representation.
A trial court must conduct a Nelson inquiry before denying a defendant's motion to terminate appointed counsel, and cannot rely solely on the defendant's prior failure to disclose witnesses.
[1] A trial court must conduct a Nelson inquiry before denying a defendant's motion to terminate appointed counsel, and cannot summarily reject such motion based solely on th…
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 intelligenceDavid McPherson was convicted of four crimes. Prior to trial, he moved to terminate his appointed counsel, citing irreconcilable conflicts, counsel's …
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 Competency Of Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
FRANK, Judge.
David McPherson was convicted of committing four crimes. Prior to trial, McPherson filed a motion seeking to terminate his appointed counsel relying upon claimed irreconcilable conflicts, the competency of his counsel and his counsel’s failure to pursue witnesses and evidence offered by McPherson. He raises two issues on appeal, only one of which warrants consideration. The trial court summarily denied McPherson’s motion referring to an earlier denial of a motion for continuance because of McPherson’s failure to disclose witnesses.
Extensive reference to authority is not essential in demonstrating the trial court’s error in denying McPherson’s effort to end his representation by appointed counsel. The trial court’s reliance upon an earlier decision, reached at the pretrial conference, that McPherson did not disclose his witnesses for some ten months was misplaced in determining, without more, to reject his motion for the termination of appointed counsel. The lack of any Nelson inquiry in the record compels our decision. Hardwick v. State, 521 So. 2d 1071, 1074-75 (Fla.1988), cert, denied, 488 U.S. 871, 109 S.Ct. 185, 102 L.Ed.2d 154 (1988); Bowen v. State, 677 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (en banc), rev. granted 687 So. 2d 1305 (Fla.1997).
Accordingly, we reverse the convictions and remand for a new trial.
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and BLUE, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brake v. Eve E. Murphy, 693 So. 2d 663 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…itionally, we quash the order requiring the posting of a surety bond, as well as that portion of the order granting a continuance which assessed a fine. Petition granted. The writ of prohibition is issued and the cause remanded. . Brake v. Murphy, 688 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). . The surcharge order was signed June 21, 1993, one week after the second ex parte conference.…
-
THE Florida BAR v. Brake, 767 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 2000)…state and the sale of the office building appropriately has been called “interminable and vexatious.” See Brake v. Estate of Murphy, 719 So. 2d 333, 333 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); see also Brake v. Swan, 733 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Brake v. Murphy, 688 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Brake v. Third District Court of Appeal, 666 So. 2d 142 (Fla.1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1147, 116 S.Ct. 1019, 134 L.Ed.2d 99 (1996); Brake v. Murphy, 687 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), review denied, 697 So. 2d 1217 (Fla.1997)…
-
Brake v. Swan, 733 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…conveyance action in the circuit court and is not an issue in this appeal. . This court has characterized the estate proceedings as involving ''interminable litigation.” See Brake v. Murphy, 693 So. 2d 663, 664 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Brake v. Murphy, 688 So. 2d 403, 404 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). . The orders under review are one dated July 20, 1998, entered in both probate proceedings, and an order dated July 6, 1998, in the Dennis Murphy probate proceeding.…
Authorities Cited
- Thompson v. Louisiana, 488 U.S. 871 (U.S. 1988)
- Hardwick v. State, 521 So. 2d 1071 (Fla. 1988)
- Bowen v. State, 677 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)