GLENN R. PENA, 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 trial court properly denied the public defender's office motion to withdraw from representation where the conflict was personal between the defendant and a single assistant public defender, not an institutional conflict between clients.
A personal conflict between a defendant and an individual assistant public defender does not require the entire public defender's office to withdraw from representation.
[1] A personal conflict between a defendant and an individual assistant public defender does not constitute grounds for the entire public defender's office to withdraw from r…
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 intelligencePetitioner developed a hostile relationship with assistant public defender Louis Townsend. The public defender's office moved to withdraw, certifying …
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 Attorney Withdrawal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner filed a petition for writ of certiorari to quash the order of the trial court denying the office of the public defender’s motion to withdraw from representation of petitioner in connection with two felony matters. The public defender’s motion to withdraw explains that petitioner developed a hostile relationship with assistant public defender Louis Townsend and “certified” that there was a conflict of interest necessitating his withdrawal. The trial court, however, noted that the conflict was unique and between petitioner and Townsend only. It permitted Townsend to withdraw but declined to permit the entire office of the public defender to withdraw.
In its petition, the office of the public defender claims that the trial court was required to grant the motion to withdraw based on Guzman v. State, 644 So. 2d 996 (Fla.1994). In that ease, the court held that the office of the public defender is allowed to withdraw when the public defender certifies that there is a conflict of interest between two clients of the office. It does not speak to a conflict of the personal nature such as the one in this case.
We hold that there was no departure from the essential requirements of law in the trial court’s refusal to permit the entire office of the public defender to withdraw.
GLICKSTEIN, WARNER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ward v. State, 753 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…cited by the respondent involving strictly personal, limited conflicts between a defendant and defense counsel are clearly distinguishable from the instant allegations. See, e.g., Thomas v. State, 725 So. 2d 1171 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Pena v. State, 706 So. 2d 1378 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (no departure from essential requirements of law in trial court’s permitting defense counsel to withdraw but declining to permit entire office of public defender to withdraw, where conflict was “unique” and between petitioner and…
Authorities Cited
- Guzman v. State, 644 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 1994)