VERNON M. LESLIE, JR., 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 Fourth District Court of Appeal held that when a public defender certifies a conflict of interest, the trial court lacks discretion to deny the public defender's motion to withdraw and must grant it. The court reversed the trial court's order denying the motion to withdraw conflict-free counsel.
The trial court had no discretion to deny the motion once the public defender certified a conflict existed. The court must grant the public defender's motion to withdraw and appoint conflict-free counsel when a conflict is properly certified.
[1] A trial court has no discretion to deny a public defender's motion to withdraw and appoint conflict-free counsel when the public defender certifies a conflict exists.
[2] A conflict of interest for the public defender's office can arise from current representation of a witness expected to testify against a defendant.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“In view of the public defender's certification of conflict, the trial court had no discretion to do other than grant the motion; it may not reweigh the facts that gave rise to the public defender's determination that a conflict existed.”
Establishes the core holding that trial courts must defer to public defender's conflict certification and cannot second-guess the determination.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe public defender's office represented a state witness on appeal who was expected to testify against Petitioner Leslie at trial. The witness had pre…
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 Right To Conflict-Free Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner challenges the trial court’s order denying the public defender’s motion to withdraw and appoint conflict-free counsel. We grant the petition, quash the order, and direct the trial court on remand to grant the motion.
At the time the motion was filed and heard, the office of the public defender represented, on appeal, a state witness who was expected to testify against Petitioner at trial. The witness had entered a plea in his own ease, while represented by conflict counsel because a codefendant of his was being represented by the public defender. The state disputed that an actual conflict existed due to the unlikelihood that any confidential communications would have taken place that could give rise to a conflict, the nature of appellate representation as being confined to the record and the law, and the probability that the public defender would be withdrawing from representation of the witness on appeal. After the petition for writ of certiorari was filed with this court, the public defender’s motion to withdraw from representing the witness on appeal was filed and granted.
The state suggests that because the motion to withdraw was filed while the public defender had a conflict based on current representation of the witness, the petition should be denied without prejudice to the public defender’s again moving to withdraw, if the public defender now can certify conflict as to the past representation of the witness. However, the trial court questioned the assistant public defender at the hearing on the motion as to what effect the public defender’s withdrawal from representing the witness would have on the instant motion, and the assistant public defender represented that the conflict would still exist.
In view of the public defender’s certification of conflict, the trial court had no discretion to do other than grant the motion; it may not reweigh the facts that gave rise to the public defender’s determination that 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 trial court to enter an order granting the motion to withdraw.
FARMER, STEVENSON and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Blackwood v. State, 755 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…ts between the two clients, under section 27.53(3), Florida Statutes ..., a trial court must grant separate representation.”. Id. at 999. In other words, the trial court has no discretion and must grant such motions to withdraw. See Leslie v. State, 720 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (citations omitted); see also Hope v. State, 654 So. 2d 639, 639 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)(“Following the dictates of Guzman, once the public defender determined that a conflict existed ... the trial court was required to grant the mot…
-
Sheffield v. State, 725 So. 2d 1229 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…rt’s decision in Guzman v. State, 644 So. 2d 996 (Fla.1994), leaves us no choice but to grant the petition. Guzman makes it clear that under section 27.53, Florida Statutes, the trial court had no discretion in this matter. See also Leslie v. State, 720 So. 2d 559, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D2092 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Filan v. State, 720 So. 2d 549, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D1880 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Reardon v. State, 715 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). We grant certiorari, quash the order denying leave to withdraw, and in…
-
Ross v. State, 730 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…er certifies conflict pursuant to section 27.53, Florida Statutes. See Terry v. State, — So. 2d-, 1999 WL 68926 (Fla. 4th DCA Feb.10, 1999)(slip op.); Sheffield v. State, 725 So. 2d 1229, 1999 WL 18432 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999;(slip op.); Leslie v. State, 720 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Filan v. State, 720 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Reardon v. State, 715 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). We grant certiorari, quash the order denying leave to withdraw, and instruct the trial judge to appoint different counse…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Guzman v. State, 644 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 1994)
- Reardon v. State, 715 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Crowe v. State, 701 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)
- Guven Cankur v. State, 706 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Earline Banks v. State, 661 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Costa v. State, 712 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)