Langon v. State, 98-0215.

• Decision Date: 28 July 1999
• Docket Number: No. 98-0215.,98-0215.
• Citation: 791 So.2d 1105
• Parties: Steven LANGON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

791 So.2d 1105

Steven LANGON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 98-0215.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 28, 1999.

James L. Eisenberg, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and James J. Carney, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

STONE, J.

Appellant's motion for rehearing is denied. However, we republish our opinion, with two corrections, as follows:

We affirm Appellant's conviction and sentence for first-degree murder with a firearm, attempted robbery with a firearm, aggravated assault with a firearm, and carrying a concealed weapon.

Langon contends that his Sixth Amendment right to assistance of counsel was violated because of the court's failure to conduct a complete inquiry to determine a knowing and intelligent waiver of such right. He also asserts that his rights to assistance of counsel and to a fair trial were compromised by the court's denial of a continuance prior to trial.

In 1990, Langon was convicted of these same charges, but this court overturned that conviction and remanded for a new trial. Langon v. State, 636 So.2d 578 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). In June 1994, the trial court determined that lead counsel from the first trial, Anthony Natale, would be retained for the second. However, in July 1994, the trial court heard Natale's motion to withdraw in the first of a string of similar motions stretching over many years. Natale had irreconcilable differences with Langon and submitted a sealed affidavit as to the specifics. Langon confirmed that he wanted Natale to withdraw. The trial court rejected Natale's suggestion that Nelson Bailey, the second chair counsel in the first trial, be appointed to the case, and instead appointed Joe Atterbury. The trial court subsequently granted two motions by Atterbury for continuances. In January 1995, the trial court appointed Jorge Labarga as second chair.

In March 1995, with the trial set for April 3, Langon filed a pro se motion to discharge counsel, claiming that Atterbury's representation fell below the standards of professional conduct due to the manner in which he pursued a motion to suppress, his failure to file a motion to dismiss certain underlying charges, his failure to file a motion in limine, and his failure to investigate circumstances to effectively pursue an intoxication defense at trial. At a hearing on the motion, Atterbury asked to be discharged from the case based on the fact that Langon was refusing to discuss the case or work with him. The trial court informed Langon that he did not "get to just get two weeks from trial and say, I don't like my lawyer, and we start all over again." The trial court gave Langon a choice from the four lawyers who had worked with him previously, Atterbury, Labarga, Bailey, or Natale. Langon chose Bailey.

Bailey requested that Labarga remain on the case as second chair and asked for a few additional months to prepare. The trial court replied:

Okay. Here's what we're going to do, Mr. Langon, let me be perfectly clear about this today. As I said before, I don't think you've stated grounds to get Mr. Atterbury off the case and I'm so finding. But I'm going to permit Mr. Bailey to because, at this point, he's probably equally prepared.

But I'm not going to play games with you. For any reason, we get close to trial, all of a sudden you decide Mr. Bailey is not the choice for you, you will have two choices, either represent yourself or Mr. Atterbury comes back into the case having prepared it.

A few weeks before an October trial date, the trial court allowed Bailey to withdraw from the case due to his appointment to the county court. Labarga was then appointed as lead counsel. The trial court later allowed Labarga to withdraw because he was appointed to the circuit court. About that time, the trial court also permitted counsel, Jack Goldberger, to withdraw based on Goldberger's claim that it would be inappropriate for him to represent Langon when Atterbury, his partner, had previously withdrawn due to a conflict. The trial court then appointed Thomas Montgomery and continued the trial until August 12, 1996.

In May 1996, Langon filed a pro se motion requesting that the court remove Montgomery from the case due to an "ongoing conflict." Montgomery moved to withdraw, stating that Langon refused to see him at the jail, refused to discuss his case, refused to reply to written communications, and created a conflict by filing a writ in this court to have Montgomery removed. The trial court granted Montgomery's motion and appointed Michael Salnick as counsel. The trial court again continued the trial until February 7, 1997.

In December 1996, the trial court held a hearing on Salnick's motion to withdraw from the case. Salnick moved to withdraw at Langon's request. Langon claimed that he did not trust Salnick or feel that Salnick was keeping commitments he made to him. Salnick did not agree with Langon's representations. The state reminded the court that several of the previous attorneys on the case had run into problems similar to those encountered by Salnick and asserted that Langon was manipulating the system. The trial court denied Salnick's motion, stating, "The manipulation must end." (emphasis supplied)

Salnick later filed a motion for continuance based on the fact that Langon refused to see and cooperate with him until the jail made a change in Langon's housing. The court granted the motion but found that Langon had been "manipulative of the system in the extreme." The trial court made "a sort of plea" to Langon to cooperate with Salnick.

In January 1997, Langon filed a pro se motion to discharge Salnick. Salnick informed the court that he had no attorney-client relationship with Langon because Langon refused to see him or anyone from his office. Salnick stated that James Eisenberg would be willing to take the case. Langon stated that he would cooperate with Eisenberg as best as he could. The court warned:

I am of the mind to sort of go against my commitment of the last hearing which I felt very strongly about, of forcing Mr. Salnick to go to trial and appointing Mr. Eisenberg.

But if another circumstance develops like we have had now with Mr. Salnick and you decide that you are going to stop cooperating, I will then indeed go forward with the trial. Do you understand that I am committed to that now, and that is my decision?

Langon stated that he understood. The court clarified:

You have had a lot of litigation and a lot of requests.

* * *

And I said to you before and I say to you again, you have at least with the Court been articulate and restrained and not problematic in your presentation of your grievances.

* * *

And as I warned you this morning or cautioned you-whichever is the most appropriate-if you accept Mr. Eisenberg, maybe even if you don't, I am going to move forward with this lawsuit and we are going to get it, it tried.

* * *

You have been through, as I said this morning, a laundry list of our finest defense lawyers, and I mean they are good.

* * *

So, having cautioned you about that, it is up to you to tell me, are you ready to move forward with Mr. Eisenberg?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor, I am ready to move forward with Mr. Eisenberg.

THE COURT: Okay. And do you understand that if you should change your mind-and I hope you won't, I want you to be satisfied with him, and I think you will be-but I will make you move forward anyway. Do you understand that is a commitment from the Court?

Langon agreed. The case was reset for trial twice thereafter.

On May 27, 1997, Eisenberg filed a motion to withdraw. According to Eisenberg, inmates with counsel were entitled to only one hour per week in the jail law library while other inmates were allowed twice that much. Langon wished to spend more time in the law library, and if this extra time were denied him, he wished to proceed pro se. Langon then filed a pro se "amended motion to allow counsel to withdraw and to allow defendant to represent himself." At the hearing on these motions, the following exchange took place:

MR. EISENBERG: Mr. Langon, as the Court knows, is literate, he's a very intelligent man. He's doing his own litigation in Civil Court. He's written a million motions. He's very understanding of the legal process. He's educated and he-certainly, there is no question, I think, that he's competent to represent himself, which is the only issue.

THE COURT: You have provided the Bowen case to Mr. Langon?

MR. EISENBERG: I have provided it to Mr. Langon.

* * *

THE COURT: Tell us your name and age, please.

THE DEFENDANT: My name is Steve Langon. I am 54 years old, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Langon, it is your desire, you're telling me here today, to discharge Mr. Eisenberg?

THE DEFENDANT: That is correct.

THE COURT: All right. And you have read this Bowen case, which is, as we have said, the most recent pronouncement and you understand it and it is in the light of your knowledge and understanding of that case that you make this request?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. I don't see any reason why I should delay the trial and I want you to be thinking about that while I visit with the State to ask for her response.

Thereafter, Langon asked for a three month continuance. The court told Eisenberg:

I can't imagine a more unreasonable request than that in all of my years of experience, based on the regrettable, perhaps even shocking chronology of this case for which you're not responsible, clearly.

Mr. Langon, it is my finding and my ruling that you are one of the most manipulative defendants or litigants that I have ever experienced and I have seen a few. We are all manipulative, Mr. Langon, Judges, lawyers, court reporters, all of us manipulative, that's what people do in life. So I don't mean that in some despicable or excessively derogatory fashion. I just mean that you have

...