Camejo v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Camejo v. State

217 So. 3d 220, 2017 WL 1403593, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 5374

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 19, 2017

Docket3D15-1798

StatusPublished

This text of 217 So. 3d 220 (Camejo v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Camejo v. State, 217 So. 3d 220, 2017 WL 1403593, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 5374 (Fla. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

LOGUE, J.

Luis Lazaro Camejo appeals his conviction and sentence after a jury found him guilty of the sale of cocaine. On appeal, Camejo argues that his conviction and sentence should be reversed and a new trial granted because the Nelson 1 hearing conducted by the trial court was not adequate. We disagree and affirm.

We review for abuse of discretion whether a trial court conducted a proper Nelson inquiry. Maxwell v. State, 892 So.2d 1100, 1102 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). A Nelson inquiry is appropriate when a defendant expresses a desire to discharge court-appointed counsel before trial. Id. When these circumstances arise, the trial court must determine “if there is reasonable cause to believe that court-appointed counsel is not rendering effective assistance.” Id. If the defendant’s complaints do not indicate ineffective assistance of counsel, then no further inquiry is required. Id.

After a thorough review of the record and transcript of the Nelson hearing at issue on appeal, we agree with the trial court’s conclusion that Camejo failed to offer any legal basis as to why his counsel should be discharged. Because Camejo’s claims do not demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel, we conclude that the trial court conducted a proper Nelson inquiry.

Affirmed.

1

. Nelson v. State, 274 So.2d 256 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

LOGUE, J.

Luis Lazaro Camejo appeals his conviction and sentence after a jury found him guilty of the sale of cocaine. On appeal, Camejo argues that his conviction and sentence should be reversed and a new trial granted because the Nelson 1 hearing conducted by the trial court was not adequate. We disagree and affirm.

We review for abuse of discretion whether a trial court conducted a proper Nelson inquiry. Maxwell v. State, 892 So.2d 1100, 1102 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). A Nelson inquiry is appropriate when a defendant expresses a desire to discharge court-appointed counsel before trial. Id. When these circumstances arise, the trial court must determine “if there is reasonable cause to believe that court-appointed counsel is not rendering effective assistance.” Id. If the defendant’s complaints do not indicate ineffective assistance of counsel, then no further inquiry is required. Id.

After a thorough review of the record and transcript of the Nelson hearing at issue on appeal, we agree with the trial court’s conclusion that Camejo failed to offer any legal basis as to why his counsel should be discharged. Because Camejo’s claims do not demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel, we conclude that the trial court conducted a proper Nelson inquiry.

Affirmed.

1

. Nelson v. State, 274 So.2d 256 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

217 So. 3d 220, 2017 WL 1403593, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 5374, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/camejo-v-state-fladistctapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack