ANTHONY MONTGOMERY, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
The court held that a trial court is not obligated to conduct a Nelson inquiry when a defendant expresses frustration over a plea bargain recommendation and does not allege counsel incompetence.
The defendant, facing trial, stated his lawyers had a conflict and he had no defense after rejecting a plea offer. He now argues the court should have…
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 Conflict Of Interest (Attorney) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Anthony Montgomery appeals his convictions for first degree murder, attempted robbery, and unlawful possession of a firearm. We affirm.
Just prior to trial, Montgomery’s defense counsel requested that the State’s latest plea offer and Montgomery’s rejection of that plea be put in the record. When the trial court asked Montgomery what he wished to do regarding the plea offer, Montgomery responded: “I don’t have no defense and my lawyers have a conflict.” At that point, he was cautioned not to discuss his case. Montgomery now argues that he is entitled to a new trial because the trial court failed to conduct an inquiry into the nature of the conflict. We disagree.
Trial courts are under no obligation to conduct a Nelson inquiry where a defendant makes no allegation of incompetence of counsel and the defendant’s grievances were an expression of frustration over his lawyer’s recommendation to accept a plea bargain. See Merelus v. State, 735 So. 2d 552, 554 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). The circumstances that surround Montgomery’s statement indicate that he and his defense counsel disagreed on whether Montgomery should accept the plea offer. Montgomery never stated the nature of the conflict nor did he mention it again. To this day, there has been no further elucidation of this passing reference to a “conflict.” We thus affirm without prejudice for Montgomery to seek relief pursuant to rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, if a genuine conflict of interest existed between Montgomery and his defense attorneys.
Montgomery’s other arguments lack merit.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
C.H. v. State, 116 So. 3d 629 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)…966 (Fla.1999) (“[D]efense attorneys have the duty to inform their clients of plea offers.”), and not based on counsel’s incompetence, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing to conduct a full Nelson inquiry. See Montgomery v. State, 811 So. 2d 726, 726 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (“Trial courts are under no obligation to conduct a Nelson inquiry where a defendant makes no allegation of incompetence of counsel and the defendant’s grievances were an expression of frustration over his lawyer’s recommenda…
Authorities Cited
- Merelus v. State, 735 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)