Harris v. State

747 So. 2d 1070, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 369, 2000 WL 35881
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided January 19, 2000·No. No. 3D99-1189·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Virgil Lee Harris appeals his conviction of multiple criminal charges. The appellate claim is that the trial court failed to conduct an inquiry under Nelson v. State, 274 So.2d 256 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973), approved, Hardwick v. State, 521 So.2d 1071 (Fla.1988), after defendant-appellant Harris complained that his appointed counsel was not providing effective representation. Where, as here, a defendant complains during trial that his appointed counsel is ineffective, no Nelson inquiry is required. See Haugabook v. State, 689 So.2d 1245 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), and cases cited therein. We need not address the State’s alternative arguments for affirmance on this issue.

Affirmed.

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

Harris v. State, 747 So. 2d 1070, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 369, 2000 WL 35881 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

747 So. 2d 1070 (Harris v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Harris
129 So. 3d 1166 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2014)
Wilson v. State
753 So. 2d 683 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2000)