Lockwood v. State, 91-2937
| Decision Date | 12 November 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 91-2937,91-2937 |
| Citation | 608 So.2d 133 |
| Parties | 17 Fla. L. Week. D2538 Jay Nelson LOCKWOOD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Tanja Ostapoff, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Joseph A. Tringali, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
We affirm appellant's convictions but remand for resentencing. We agree with appellant that the trial court failed to conduct the proper inquiry after appellant attempted to discharge counsel immediately after trial, but before sentencing. While a defendant is not entitled to any specific outcome, he is entitled to a proper resolution of his motion to discharge counsel, especially here, where his counsel joined in the motion. See Hardwick v. State, 521 So.2d 1071 (Fla.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 871, 109 S.Ct. 185, 102 L.Ed.2d 154 (1988); Gurchick v. State, 439 So.2d 1002 (Fla. 2d DCA1983); Nelson v. State, 274 So.2d 256 (Fla. 4th DCA1973).
Our remand is without prejudice to appellant's right to seek a new trial on any grounds, that issue necessarily dependent to some extent on the outcome of appellant's effort to discharge trial counsel. We do note, however, that there is no procedural bar to appellant raising claims of ineffective assistant of counsel in a motion for new trial. Cf. Combs v. State, 403 So.2d 418 (Fla.1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 984, 102 S.Ct. 2258, 72 L.Ed.2d 862 (1982).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Rosario
...to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 (citing Skrandel v. State , 830 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) )); Lockwood v. State , 608 So. 2d 133, 134 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) ("[T]here is no procedural bar to appellant raising claims of ineffective assistan[ce] of counsel in a motion for new tr......
-
Holland v. State
...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) on the basis that a request to discharge counsel after trial, but before sentencing, would have allowed inquiry into any......
-
Haugabook v. State
...to obtain post-trial relief through rule 3.850. We easily reconcile this result with a seemingly contrary outcome in Lockwood v. State, 608 So.2d 133 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), where the defendant filed a motion to discharge his trial counsel after the trial but before sentencing. This court affi......