Weems v. State, 92-3141
| Decision Date | 30 November 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-3141,92-3141 |
| Citation | 645 So.2d 1098 |
| Parties | 19 Fla. L. Weekly D2518 Thomas WEEMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Appellant's motion for rehearing is denied. However, we withdraw our opinion of September 9, 1994, and substitute the following opinion.
Appellant's conviction and sentence are affirmed. We find no error or abuse of discretion as to any issue raised, including the trial court's denial of appointed counsel's motion to withdraw, the extent of the inquiry into Appellant's request to discharge counsel, or the court's failure to advise Appellant that upon discharge of his attorney the court would not be required to appoint substitute counsel.
The conflict between client and counsel involved Appellant's complaints about how the attorney was handling the case and the lawyer's concerns about Appellant's, attitude, communication difficulties and lack of cooperation. The record is replete with evidence demonstrating the client's mental and emotional instability, including expert testimony as to his competency to stand trial. The record reflects a reasonable inquiry by the trial court. The decision denying the motions should not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of discretion. E.g., Sanborn v. State, 474 So.2d 309 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). A generalized loss of confidence or lack of cooperation alone is insufficient to mandate withdrawal by counsel. See Johnston v. State, 497 So.2d 863 (Fla.1986). Here, it is highly unlikely that a substitute public defender would have fared any better, as counsel candidly acknowledged to the court.
Further, as the court did not discharge counsel, it was not per se reversible error to fail to advise Appellant that if his lawyer were discharged the court was not required to appoint a new attorney. See generally Hardwick v. State, 521 So.2d 1071 (Fla.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 871, 109 S.Ct. 185, 102 L.Ed.2d 154 (1988). See also Causey v. State, 623 So.2d 617 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), rev. denied, 634 So.2d 623 (Fla.1994). Such a warning is required where counsel is discharged. Nelson v. State, 274 So.2d 256, 259 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973), approved in Hardwick v. State, 521 So.2d at 1074-75. However, we can discern no reason to reverse upon the failure to give such a warning when the court denies the discharge motion and the failure to so advise Appellant is patently harmless. We note that in this case, Appellant was not seeking to represent himself; therefore, Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975), is inapposite.
We have considered, and do not believe this opinion is in conflict with, our decisions in Graves v. State, 642 So.2d 142 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Dunn v. State, 640 So.2d 201 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); and Lewis v. State, 623 So.2d 1205 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). In Graves, the issue was failure to conduct an otherwise required Nelson inquiry because the defendant's motions were made pro se while represented by counsel. In Dunn, there was no inquiry at all. In Lewis, as here, there was an inquiry but the state did not contend that any error in failing to completely advise the defendant was harmless error. 1 Further, this opinion is consistent with Causey, where the court did fully inquire into a motion to withdraw but stopped short of advising Appellant that if appointed counsel were discharged, the court would not be required to appoint substitute counsel. In Causey, we said:
[t]he requirement to give this advice when a defendant seeks to discharge counsel does not mandate per se reversal every time a court may fail to do so upon learning that the defendant has expressed dissatisfaction with counsel, a daily occurrence in many trial courts. Here there was no question of Appellant's wish to be represented by court-appointed counsel.
623 So.2d at 618. In Causey, we also found any error was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Weaver v. State
...A court's decision involving withdrawal or discharge of counsel is subject to review for abuse of discretion. See Weems v. State, 645 So.2d 1098, 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (stating that denial of appointed counsel's motion to withdraw will not be disturbed absent clear abuse of discretion); ......
-
Scott v. State
...of review when a motion for leave to withdraw is denied. See Weaver v. State, 894 So.2d 178, 187 (Fla.2004); Weems v. State, 645 So.2d 1098, 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). Insofar as pertinent here, "a public defender's office is the functional equivalent of a law firm. Different attorneys in th......
-
Wilson v. State, 3D98-3388.
...there is no reason to believe that his relationship with a newly-appointed lawyer would have been any better. See Weems v. State, 645 So.2d 1098 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). Finally, counsel's stated reasons for wishing to withdraw were the defendant's loss of confidence in counsel's ability to del......
-
Soto v. State
...generalized claim that he could not get along with his counsel is insufficient to warrant counsel's discharge. See Weems v. State, 645 So.2d 1098, 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), rev. denied, 654 So.2d 920 (Fla.1995); Johnson v. State, 560 So.2d 1239, 1240 (Fla. 1st DCA Soto not only tried to get......
-
Self-representation and ineffective assistance of counsel: how trial judges can find their way through the convoluted legacy of Faretta and Nelson.
...State v. Craft, 685 So. 2d 1292 (Fla. 1996). [11] Augsberger v. State, 655 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 1992); see also Weems v. State, 645 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1994), rev. denied, 654 So. 2d 920 (Fla. [12] Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975); see also Fitzpatrick v. Wainwrigh......