ERNEST WAYNE TURNER, 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.
Turner was charged with burglary along with two codefendants and was assigned public defender representation. When the public defender's office discovered a conflict of interest between Turner and a codefendant, the trial court denied the motion to withdraw, allowing separate attorneys within the same office to represent them. The appellate court held that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel includes the right to undivided loyalty, and that members of the same public defender's office cannot represent clients with conflicting interests.
The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to counsel whose loyalty is not divided between clients with conflicting interests. Members of the same public defender's office cannot represent clients with conflicting interests, as the office must be viewed as a 'firm' for purposes of conflict of interest analysis, and when one attorney must decline representation due to conflict, no partner or associate may continue such employment.
[1] The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to counsel whose loyalty is not divided between clients with conflicting interests.
[2] The right to effective assistance of counsel includes the right to counsel free from conflicts of interest, regardless of whether counsel is appointed or privately retain…
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“The Sixth Amendment guarantee of the assistance of counsel includes the right to counsel whose loyalty is not divided between clients with conflicting interests.”
Establishes the core constitutional principle that counsel must have undivided loyalty to the defendant, citing Glasser v. United States.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioner Turner and two codefendants were charged by information with burglary of a structure. The public defender's office was appointed to represe…
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 Sixth Amendment (Right To Counsel) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We grant herein our gracious common law writ of certiorari.
Petitioner and two codefendants were charged by an information with burglary of a structure in violation of Section 810.02, Florida Statutes (1975). The public defender’s office was appointed to represent all three codefendants. After interviewing the three defendants, the public defender’s office filed a motion to be relieved as counsel for petitioner because of a conflict of interest between the defense of petitioner and one of the other codefendants. The trial court denied the motion on the ground that separate attorneys within the public defender’s office could properly represent the codefendants. The Sixth Amendment guarantee of the assistance of counsel includes the right to counsel whose loyalty is not divided between clients with conflicting interests. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942); Baker v. State, 202 So. 2d 563 (Fla.1967); Marshall v. State, 273 So. 2d 412 (Fla.2d DCA 1973). It is immaterial whether such counsel is appointed by the court or selected by the defendant. Craig v. United States, 217 F. 2d 355 (6th Cir. 1954), but in the case of appointed counsel it is. especially important for the court to determine that no prejudice will result from multiple representation. United States v. Gougis, 374 F. 2d 758 (7th Cir. 1967).
Furthermore, this guarantee contemplates that members of the same firm cannot represent conflicting interests. The concept is articulated in the Disciplinary Rules of Canon 5, Florida Code of Professional Responsibility:
“DR 5-105 [In re: Clients’ Conflicting Interests]
(B) A lawyer shall not continue multiple employment if the exercise of his independent professional judgment in behalf of a client will be or is likely to be adversely affected by his representation of another client
* * * * * *
(D) If a lawyer is required to decline employment or to withdraw from employment under DR 5-105, no partner or associate of his or his firm may accept or continue such employment.”
We view the public defender’s office of a given circuit as a “firm” within the discipline of this canon. See also Allen v. District Court, 519 P. 2d 351 (Colo.1974); Commonwealth v. Bracey, 224 Pa.Super. 294, 307 A. 2d 320 (1973).
Accordingly, certiorari is granted. The order under review should be, and it is hereby, quashed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.
McNULTY, C. J., and HOBSON and BOARDMAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (17 total)
-
Bouie v. State, 559 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 1990)…1173, 55 L.Ed.2d 426 (1978). As a general rule, a public defender's office is the functional equivalent of a law firm. Different attorneys in the same public defender's office cannot represent defendants with conflicting interests. Turner v. State, 340 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). To show a violation of the right to conflict-free counsel, however, "a defendant must establish that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyer's performance." Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 350, 100 S.Ct. 17…
-
State v. Fitzpatrick, 464 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 1985)…on 5. The district court analogized state attorney’s offices to public defender’s offices, which have been held by two district courts of appeal to be law firms under Canon 5. See Roberts v. State, 345 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Turner v. State, 340 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). The district court acknowledged this Court’s decision in Babb v. Edwards, 412 So. 2d 859 (Fla.1982), in which we held that the language of section 27.53(3), Florida Statutes (Supp.1980), clearly and unambiguously requires the tr…
-
Babb v. Honorable W. F. Edwards, 412 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 1982)…from each other so as to assure that confidential information is not inadvertently exchanged. Babb v. Edwards, 400 So. 2d 1239 (Fla.5th DCA 1981). It has also certified that its affirmative response to this question conflicts with Turner v. State, 340 So. 2d 132 (Fla.2d DCA 1976), and Roberts v. State, 345 So. 2d 837 (Fla.3d DCA 1977). We disagree with the Fifth District’s response to the question and hold that where the public defender of a given circuit determines that the interests of indigent defendants…
Previewing 3 of 17 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60 (U.S. 1942)
- Baker v. State, 202 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 1967)
- Craig v. United States, 217 F.2d 355 (6th Cir. 1954)
- United States v. Ulysses Gougis, Jr., 374 F.2d 758 (7th Cir. 1967)
- Paris v. Allstate Ins. Co., 273 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)