Moorman v. Threadgill

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Moorman v. Threadgill

462 So. 2d 573, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 259, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 12136

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 18, 1985

DocketNo. 85-91

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 462 So. 2d 573 (Moorman v. Threadgill) 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

Moorman v. Threadgill, 462 So. 2d 573, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 259, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 12136 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

It appearing from the unrefuted allegations of the Petitioner Public Defender that Petitioner Nelson will be prevented from pursuing plea negotiations requested by him because of information he desires to disclose that may be detrimental to another client of the Public Defender, certiorari is granted.

While the state contends that no actual conflict has been demonstrated, in this case, the very possibility of conflict is preventing the Public Defender from adequately representing either client. Furthermore, to describe the actual matters which cause the possible conflict would, according to the allegations of the Public Defender, violate the attorney-client privilege. In such circumstances, the representations of the Public Defender must be accepted. This then presents a classic situation for the application of Turner v. State, 340 So.2d 132 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976), where the Public Defender is placed in the circumstance of representing two antagonistic defendants and is called on by one to reveal possible harmful information about the other.

Certiorari is granted, and the order of the trial court denying withdrawal of counsel for conflict of interest is quashed.

GRIMES, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

It appearing from the unrefuted allegations of the Petitioner Public Defender that Petitioner Nelson will be prevented from pursuing plea negotiations requested by him because of information he desires to disclose that may be detrimental to another client of the Public Defender, certiorari is granted.

While the state contends that no actual conflict has been demonstrated, in this case, the very possibility of conflict is preventing the Public Defender from adequately representing either client. Furthermore, to describe the actual matters which cause the possible conflict would, according to the allegations of the Public Defender, violate the attorney-client privilege. In such circumstances, the representations of the Public Defender must be accepted. This then presents a classic situation for the application of Turner v. State, 340 So.2d 132 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976), where the Public Defender is placed in the circumstance of representing two antagonistic defendants and is called on by one to reveal possible harmful information about the other.

Certiorari is granted, and the order of the trial court denying withdrawal of counsel for conflict of interest is quashed.

GRIMES, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

462 So. 2d 573, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 259, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 12136, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moorman-v-threadgill-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack