JAMES SHEFFIELD, 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 granted certiorari and quashed the trial judge's denial of the public defender's motion to withdraw, holding that section 27.53 of the Florida Statutes mandates withdrawal when a conflict of interest exists, regardless of whether the conflicted witness appears in the specific case.
Under section 27.53, Florida Statutes, a trial court has no discretion to deny a public defender's motion to withdraw based on a conflict of interest.
[1] Under section 27.53, Florida Statutes, a trial court lacks discretion to deny a public defender's motion to withdraw based on a conflict of interest certified by the publ…
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 public defender represented the petitioner in two criminal cases and certified a conflict of interest because his office represented a woman named…
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 Motion To Withdraw As Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner is represented by the public defender in two criminal cases. The public defender certified to the trial judge that he has a conflict of interest requiring withdrawal in both cases because his office represents a woman who is named as a state witness in only one of the cases. The trial judge permitted withdrawal in the case in which the woman had been named as a witness, but denied leave to withdraw in the other case. The Florida Supreme Court’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 instruct the trial judge to appoint different counsel. As we did in Reardon, we conclude that any other result would require a legislative change and again decline to certify the question as a matter of great public importance.
GUNTHER, GROSS, JJ., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Guzman v. State, 644 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 1994)
- Reardon v. State, 715 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Leslie v. State, 720 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Filan v. State, 720 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)