GUVEN CANKUR, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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 court quashed the trial court's denial of the public defender's motion to withdraw based on an irreconcilable conflict of interest, holding that once counsel certifies a conflict exists, the trial court must grant withdrawal without reweighing the facts.
Once an attorney certifies that an irreconcilable conflict of interest exists, the trial court must grant the motion to withdraw without reweighing the facts underlying the conflict determination.
[1] When counsel certifies an irreconcilable conflict of interest exists, the trial court must grant a motion to withdraw without reweighing the facts underlying the conflict…
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 intelligenceThe assistant public defender sought to withdraw as counsel because his office had previously represented an individual who was identified as a state …
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 Irreconcilable Conflict cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We grant this petition for writ of certiorari, and quash the trial court’s order denying the assistant public defender’s motion to withdraw as counsel of record.
In his motion, the assistant public defender certified that he was required to withdraw due to an irreconcilable conflict of interest because his office had previously represented an individual identified as a state witness in the instant prosecution. At a hearing on the motion, the State represented that it would not call this individual to testify. . The public defender maintained that this would not cure the problem because the interests of the two clients remained so adverse and hostile that both clients could not be represented without a conflict of interest. The trial court found that the State’s offer to refrain from calling the witness removed any potential conflict of interest, and denied the motion to withdraw.
We find that under the circumstances of this case, the trial court was required to grant the motion to withdraw without re weighing the facts considered by the public defender in determining and certifying that a conflict exists. See Guzman v. State, 644 So. 2d 996 (Fla.1994); Hope v. State, 654 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); see also Crowe v. State, 701 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997).
Petition for Writ of Certiorari Granted; Order Quashed.
STEVENSON and GROSS, JJ., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Leslie v. State, 720 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…at a conflict existed. See § 27.53(3), Fla. Stat. (1997); Guzman v. State, 644 So. 2d 996 (Fla.1994); Reardon v. State, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D1881, 715 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Costa v. State, 712 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Cankur v. State, 706 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Banks v. State, 661 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Crowe v. State, 701 So. 2d 431, 431-32 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (Dauksch, J., concurring specially). Therefore, we grant the petition, quash the order on review, and remand for the…
-
Siddhartha Pagidipati & 1010 Cap., Inc. v. Sanket Vyas, 353 So. 3d 1204 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022)…es thereafter); cf. Canta v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 245 So. 3d 813, 818 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (concluding that imputed conflict was not cured by " 'midstream' sequence of events" including tainted attorney's dissociation with firm); Cankur v. State, 706 So. 2d 944, 944-45 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (quashing order denying disqualification due to irreconcilable conflict arising from defense counsel's prior representation of state witness, notwithstanding state's subsequent offer not to call that witness at trial). Ul…
-
Terry v. State, 731 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…ognize that in light of counsel’s certification of conflict, the trial court had no discretion to deny the motion. See, e.g., Leslie v. State, 720 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Reardon v. State, 715 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Cankur v. State, 706 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Moreover, we do not find that Appellant waived the conflict of interest issue. All other issues raised are moot. We reverse and remand for a new trial. STONE, C.J., WARNER and GROSS, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Guzman v. State, 644 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 1994)
- Forrest Hope v. State, 654 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)