LEROY WILLIAMS, 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.
Leroy Williams appealed a guilty plea conviction for robbery, challenging whether joint representation by a single public defender for multiple co-defendants violated his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. The court affirmed, holding that Baker v. State's concerns about conflicting defenses apply only to trials with evidence and strategy, not guilty pleas without defenses.
The court held that no objection to joint representation is necessary due to the fundamental nature of the right involved, and that Baker v. State's prohibition on joint representation applies only when defendants go to trial with conflicting evidence, strategy, and defenses. Where defendants plead guilty without presenting defenses, the concerns underlying Baker are not present.
“such an appointment (joint representation) denied the individual defendant representation by an attorney who could act for his best interest without regard to the effect of such action on the interest of the co-defendant. The interests and defenses of most co-defendants are conflicting.”
Baker v. State's holding establishing the general prohibition on joint representation due to inherent conflicts of interest
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLeroy Williams, along with two co-defendants (Jimmy Williams and Carlton Mitchell, Jr.), was charged with robbery. Williams was adjudged insolvent and…
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 Joint Representation cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal by Leroy Williams, defendant below, from a judgment and sentence in a criminal case in which he, along with two other co-defendants, pled quilty to the crime of robbery.
The défendant was adjudged insolvent and the public defender was appointed as his counsel. This same public defender was appointed to represent Jimmy Williams and Carlton Mitchell, Jr., who were named as co-defendants in the information for robbery as filed against Leroy Williams, the appellant herein.
The voluntariness of the guilty plea of the appellant is not questioned in this case.
The first question presented for our determination is whether it is necessary to an appeal for objection to be made concerning the point of joint representation. Counsel for appellant concedes that the record is void of any such objection..
The courts of this state are divided on this point. The Fourth District Court of Appeal in the case of Youngblood v. State, Fla.App.1968, 206 So.2d 665, at page 666, stated:
“ * * * in view of the fundamental nature of the right involved, objection is not a critical factor.”
The Third District Court of Appeal in the case of Belton v. State, Fla.App. 1968, 211 So.2d 238, declined to follow the Youngblood case and held that it would not entertain the appeal absent an obj ection to joint representation or request for individual counsel.
We are inclined to follow the Youngblood decision and hold that no objection is necessary in view of the fundamental right involved.
The second question presented for our determination on this appeal is whether the appellant was denied the effective assistance of counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States by virtue of the fact that appellant was denied individual representation as the same attorney represented all defendants.
The appellant relies for reversal on the decision by the Supreme Court of Florida in Baker v. State, Fla. 1967, 202 So.2d 563, at pages 565-566, which states:
“ * * * such an appointment (joint representation) denied the individual defendant representation by an attorney who could act for his best interest without regard to the effect of such action on the interest of the co-defendant. The interests and defenses of most co-defendants are conflicting. Evidence, strategy and defenses which will benefit one co-defendant usually are detrimental to the other. It is this conflict and inconsistency of position which makes it impossible for the same counsel to effectively represent two or more co-defendants simultaneously.'’ (emphasis added)
It is clear from the Baker case that the conflict in evidence, strategy and de*31fenses during a trial would result in an inconsistency of position which would make it impossible for the same attorney at the same time to effectively represent more than one defendant. In the case sub judice, there was no trial, evidence, or strategy involved, and no defenses presented. The defendants pled guilty to the charge. The cases cited in the Baker decision only apply when a defendant pleads “not guilty” and goes to trial. All the valid reasons set forth in those cases are not present where a defendant pleads “guilty”, as here, interposing no defenses. See Mitchell v. State, 213 So.2d 289, filed August 14, 1968 in this court.
No error having been made to appear, the judgment of the lower court is hereby
Affirmed.
ALLEN, Acting C. J., and PIERCE and HOBSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Belton v. State, 217 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1968)…ded to Baker and Glasser in Rogers v. State, 212 So. 2d 367 (1st Dist.Ct.App.Fla.1968); and Dunbar v. State, 214 So. 2d 52 (2d Dist.Ct.App.Fla.1968), where the Second District Court of Appeal modified its earlier view as stated in Williams v. State, 214 So. 2d 29 (2d Dist.Ct.App.Fla.1968). A different view has been taken in Youngblood v. State, 206 So. 2d 665 (4th Dist.Ct.App.Fla.1968). We find that the District Court correctly disposed of the matter. Its decision is approved and the writ is discharged. It…
-
Dunbar v. State, 214 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)…or request is absolutely necessary, while the Fourth District Court has held that it is not. Compare Youngblood v. State, Fla.App.1968, 206 So. 2d 665, with Belton v. State, Fla.App.1968, 211 So. 2d 238, 239. In the recent case of Williams v. State, 214 So. 2d 29, opinion filed September 4, 1968, this court aligned itself with the Fourth District and held that “no objection is necessary in view of the fundamental right involved.” Nowhere, however, did we express an opinion with respect to whether or not prej…
-
Baker v. State, 217 So. 2d 880 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969)…Baker v. State (Fla.1967), 202 So. 2d 563, 565, 566. . Youngblood v. State (Fla.App.1968), 206 So. 2d 665. . Belton v. State (Fla.App.1968), 211 So. 2d 238. . Mitchell v. State (Fla.App.1968), 213 So. 2d 289. . Williams v. State (Fla.App.1968), 214 So. 2d 29. . Dunbar v. State (Fla.App.1968), 214 So. 2d 52. . Rogers and Herring v. State (Fla.App.1968), 212 So. 2d 367. . Belton v. State, Fla., 217 So. 2d 97. Opinion filed December 17, 1968, but not yet reported. . State v. Youngblood and Campbell, Fl…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Baker v. State, 202 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 1967)
- Belton v. State, 211 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Youngblood v. State, 206 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968)
- Douglas v. State, 206 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Carlton George Mitchell, Jr. v. State, 213 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)