WALTER MILANE, JR., 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.
Trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion to replace public defender where the Office of the Public Defender represented a material witness in another case, because the assigned attorney certified no conflict and vigorous cross-examination occurred.
A trial court does not err in denying a motion to replace public defender where the public defender certifies no conflict of interest and the assigned attorney's cross-examination of the adverse witness is vigorous.
[1] A public defender's representation of a material witness in a separate case does not require replacement of counsel absent a showing that the conflict adversely affected…
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“where the public defender of a given circuit determines that the interests of indigent defendants are so adverse or hostile that they cannot all be represented by him or his assistant public defenders regardless of the location of their offices within the circuit without conflict of interest, the trial court shall, upon motion of the public defender, appoint other counsel as provided by statute.”
Babb v. Edwards standard for when trial court must appoint substitute counsel due to conflict of interest
Milane was represented by a public defender whose office, though not the specific assigned attorney, also represented a material witness against Milan…
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 Indigent Defense cases and more on FLexlaw
HARRIS, Judge.
The issue in this case is whether the trial court erred in not replacing Milane’s public defender with private counsel because the Office of the Public Defender, but not the specific attorney assigned to Milane, also represented in another case a material witness against Milane in the case at bar. Under the facts of this case, we find no error and affirm.
.The supreme court in Babb v. Edwards, 412 So. 2d 859, 860 (Fla.1982), established the principle that:
[W]here the public defender of a given circuit determines that the interests of indigent defendants are so adverse or hostile that they cannot all be represented by him or his assistant public defenders regardless of the location of their offices within the circuit without conflict of interest, the trial court shall, upon motion of the public defender, appoint other counsel as provided by statute.
In the case before us, the public defender refused to certify conflict and specifically responded to the judge’s question that he would not feel in any way constrained in his cross-examination of the witness if called by the State to testify against Milane. Nothing suggests herein that the cross-examination of the witness at trial was anything other than vigorous. Since Milane has been unable to establish a conflict which adversely affected counsel’s performance, we affirm the decision below.
AFFIRMED.
GRIFFIN, C.J., and THOMPSON, J., concur.