Williams v. State, 92-0364
| Decision Date | 07 July 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-0364,92-0364 |
| Citation | 622 So.2d 490 |
| Parties | 18 Fla. L. Week. D1564 Lanell WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
V. Ted Brabham of Henley & Brabham, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Sarah B. Mayer, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
We reverse the conviction and sentence and remand for a new trial because we agree with appellant's contention that the trial court erred in denying his trial counsel's motion to withdraw. The motion to withdraw was filed by appellant's counsel after the trial court ruled that Nazon, the public defender's investigator, could be called by the state as a witness. 1 As grounds for withdrawing, appellant's counsel asserted he had a conflict of interest, which precluded him from cross-examining Nazon as to the reliability of the photo line up identification of appellant by one of the victims. Appellant's counsel argued that he had a conflict because Nazon was his investigator and he owed him a duty of loyalty, and, therefore, would be precluded from effectively cross-examining him. The trial court denied the motion to withdraw. The public defender renewed his objections at the time the state called Nazon, and the court overruled the objections. The state proceeded to introduce Nazon's photo lineup and elicit testimony from Nazon that the victim had identified appellant. The public defender refused to cross-examine Nazon even though he informed the trial court that he had several grounds to impeach Nazon's testimony, specifically, that the lineup was impermissibly suggestive.
Appellant argues that the trial court erred in refusing to allow the public defender to withdraw from representing appellant based on the public defender's perceived conflict of interest, and the public defender's resulting inability to adequately represent appellant by failing to cross-examine Nazon about the lineup. The state argues that it was not error to refuse to allow the public defender to withdraw because the public defender did not have an actual conflict of interest.
A public defender should be permitted to withdraw where the public defender determines that the client's interests are so adverse or hostile that they cannot be represented without conflict of interest. Babb v. Edwards, 412 So.2d 859 (Fla.1982). Furthermore, Rule 4-1.7 states in part:
A lawyer shall not represent a client if the lawyer's exercise of independent professional judgment in the representation of that client may be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client or to a third person or by the lawyers own interest ... (e.s.).
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schwab v. State, 80289
...principles occasionally produce a conflict of interest that requires allowing a public defender to withdraw. E.g., Williams v. State, 622 So.2d 490 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). To mandate withdrawal, however, the prejudice caused by continued representation must be more than de minimis, and the par......
-
Roberts v. State, 94-1241
...a public defender to withdraw based on counsel's perceived conflict between his client's and his own interests. See Williams v. State, 622 So.2d 490 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). At the other end of the spectrum, a "[g]eneral loss of confidence or trust standing alone will not support withdrawal of ......
-
Delacruz v. State
...4-1.7 (Loyalty to a client). Although we have found no case directly on point, we are persuaded by the analysis in Williams v. State, 622 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). In Williams, we decided that a public defender should have been allowed to withdraw where the state called the public def......