Denson v. State, 96-2857
| Decision Date | 21 March 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 96-2857,96-2857 |
| Citation | 689 So.2d 1274 |
| Parties | 22 Fla. L. Weekly D737 Clifton DENSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Larry B. Henderson, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Robin A. Compton, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
Clifton Denson was convicted of possession and delivery of a controlled substance. At sentencing, he complained that his attorney had been ineffective during his trial. The trial judge observed:
I don't know what you expect your lawyer to do. He is not a magician. The officer testified that you walked up to his car, and you sold cocaine directly to an undercover police officer. I mean, the officer testified that not only did you sell the cocaine to him, but following the sale, that you were arrested at the scene. He came back and reconfirmed that you were the person that sold him the cocaine. I don't know what you expect your attorney to do with those facts.
The trial court, after making this statement, permitted defense counsel to continue to represent Denson through the sentencing hearing. Denson appeals claiming that the court erred in not conducting a Nelson hearing. We affirm the trial court.
In Nelson v. State, 274 So.2d 256 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973), the court announced the rule that "if a defendant, before the commencement of trial, makes it appear to the trial judge that he desires to discharge his court appointed counsel ... [and if] ... incompetency of counsel is assigned by the defendant as the reason, or a reason, the trial judge should make a sufficient inquiry of the defendant and his appointed counsel to determine whether or not there is reasonable cause to believe that the court-appointed counsel is not rendering effective assistance to the defendant." It is the purpose of the Nelson inquiry to determine if the appointed counsel is performing adequately and if not, to replace such counsel. The Nelson inquiry has no role in past ineffectiveness of counsel.
Denson contends correctly that he is entitled to be represented by competent counsel at all critical stages of his trial. He is further correct in that sentencing is such a stage. But he did not complain to the court that his counsel was not doing something that he should or that he was doing anything that he should not in relation to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Holland v. State
...and if not, to replace such counsel. The Nelson inquiry has no role in past ineffectiveness of counsel [claims]." Denson v. State , 689 So. 2d 1274, 1275 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) ; see also Haugabook , 689 So. 2d at 1246 (distinguishing Lockwood v. State , 608 So. 2d 133, 134 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)......
-
Blanding v. State
...the alleged ineffectiveness must arise from the current representation by counsel, not past indiscretions. See Denson v. State, 689 So.2d 1274, 1275 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) ("It is the purpose of the Nelson inquiry to determine if the appointed counsel is performing adequately and if not, to re......
-
Hodges v. State, 97-3340.
...inquiry is to determine "if the appointed counsel is performing adequately and if not, to replace such counsel." Denson v. State, 689 So.2d 1274, 1275 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). Here, prior to trial, the defendant requested that the trial court discharge his court-appointed attorney, claiming tha......
-
Brown v. State
...scoresheet and presented the testimony of witnesses and argued vigorously on Appellant's behalf. As was the case in Denson v. State, 689 So.2d 1274, 1275 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997), Appellant “simply did not either timely or properly make an objection about his attorney that would warrant a Nelson......