BENTZ BOURSIQUOT, APPELLANT,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Sheppard v. State, 17 So. 3d 275 (Fla. 2009)
  …ledged that exceptions exist if there are allegations that counsel coerced the defendant into taking a certain action or the allegations reflect an adversarial relationship. See Vasquez v. State, 956 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); Whiting v. State, 929 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). We consider the approach taken by the Fourth District to be a more reasonable approach and one that is consistent with the goals of the administration of justice under these specific circumstances. As we stated previously, the…
• Sheppard v. State, 988 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)
  …this allegation created “an adversarial relationship” between the defendant and his attorney that precluded striking the pro se motion as a nullity. The Fifth District has cited both Peterson and Bermudez with approval. See, e.g., Whiting v. State, 929 So. 2d 673, 674-75 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). Nevertheless, since this court’s initial disagreement with Peterson as stated in Mourra, we have declined to expand the more limited exception to the rule prohibiting hybrid representation that we recognized in Mourra.…
• Williams v. State, 959 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)
  …ndered. The Second and the Fifth District Courts of Appeal have [*832] both held that pro se motions under this rule cannot be filed absent a conflict involving trial counsel. See Mourra v. State, 884 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Whiting v. State, 929 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). This distinction is not easy to enforce. See Bermudez v. State, 901 So. 2d 981 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). The motion often requires the appointment of new, conflict-free counsel. See Mosley v. State, 932 So. 2d 1239 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006…

Authorities Cited

• Cosby v. State, 913 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)