McPherson v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

McPherson v. State

688 So. 2d 403, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 944, 1997 WL 55668

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 12, 1997

DocketNo. 95-02954

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 688 So. 2d 403 (McPherson 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

McPherson v. State, 688 So. 2d 403, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 944, 1997 WL 55668 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

FRANK, Judge.

David McPherson was convicted of committing four crimes. Prior to trial, McPherson filed a motion seeking to terminate his appointed counsel relying upon claimed irreconcilable conflicts, the competency of his counsel and his counsel’s failure to pursue witnesses and evidence offered by McPherson. He raises two issues on appeal, only one of which warrants consideration. The trial court summarily denied McPherson’s motion referring to an earlier denial of a motion for continuance because of McPherson’s failure to disclose witnesses.

Extensive reference to authority is not essential in demonstrating the trial court’s error in denying McPherson’s effort to end his representation by appointed counsel. The trial court’s reliance upon an earlier decision, reached at the pretrial conference, that McPherson did not disclose his witnesses for some ten months was misplaced in determining, without more, to reject his motion for the termination of appointed counsel. The lack of any Nelson inquiry in the record compels our decision. Hardwick v. State, 521 So.2d 1071, 1074-75 (Fla.1988), cert, denied, 488 U.S. 871, 109 S.Ct. 185, 102 L.Ed.2d 154 (1988); Bowen v. State, 677 So.2d 863 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (en banc), rev. granted 687 So.2d 1305 (Fla.1997).

Accordingly, we reverse the convictions and remand for a new trial.

SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and BLUE, J., concur.

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

FRANK, Judge.

David McPherson was convicted of committing four crimes. Prior to trial, McPherson filed a motion seeking to terminate his appointed counsel relying upon claimed irreconcilable conflicts, the competency of his counsel and his counsel’s failure to pursue witnesses and evidence offered by McPherson. He raises two issues on appeal, only one of which warrants consideration. The trial court summarily denied McPherson’s motion referring to an earlier denial of a motion for continuance because of McPherson’s failure to disclose witnesses.

Extensive reference to authority is not essential in demonstrating the trial court’s error in denying McPherson’s effort to end his representation by appointed counsel. The trial court’s reliance upon an earlier decision, reached at the pretrial conference, that McPherson did not disclose his witnesses for some ten months was misplaced in determining, without more, to reject his motion for the termination of appointed counsel. The lack of any Nelson inquiry in the record compels our decision. Hardwick v. State, 521 So.2d 1071, 1074-75 (Fla.1988), cert, denied, 488 U.S. 871, 109 S.Ct. 185, 102 L.Ed.2d 154 (1988); Bowen v. State, 677 So.2d 863 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (en banc), rev. granted 687 So.2d 1305 (Fla.1997).

Accordingly, we reverse the convictions and remand for a new trial.

SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and BLUE, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

688 So. 2d 403, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 944, 1997 WL 55668, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcpherson-v-state-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack