Morales v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Morales v. State

513 So. 2d 695, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2160, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 12152

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 8, 1987

DocketNo. 86-1526

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 513 So. 2d 695 (Morales 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

Morales v. State, 513 So. 2d 695, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2160, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 12152 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinions

BASKIN, Judge.

Appellant Morales challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Morales contends, among other grounds, that trial counsel labored under a conflict of interest in his representation, depriving Morales of effective assistance of counsel. We agree. The record indicates that Morales’ counsel was subject to personal concerns regarding the effect of his trial conduct. Those concerns constituted the active representation of “ ‘conflicting interests’ ” which “ ‘adversely affected his ... performance,’ ” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 692, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2067, 80 L.Ed.2d 674, 696 (1984) (quoting Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 350, 348, 100 S.Ct. 1708, 1719, 1718, 64 L.Ed.2d 333, 346-47, 347 (1980)), and inhibited the zealous representation required of attorneys. Von Moltke v. Gillies, 332 U.S. 708, 68 S.Ct. 316, 92 L.Ed. 309 (1948). See generally, United States v. Barnes, 662 F.2d 777 (D.C.Cir.1980); United States v. Hurt, 543 F.2d 162 (D.C.Cir.1976); Commonwealth v. Duffy, 483 Pa. 170, 394 A.2d 965 (1978). We therefore vacate the order of the trial court, reverse the judgment, and remand for a new trial.

Reversed and remanded.

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

BASKIN, Judge.

Appellant Morales challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Morales contends, among other grounds, that trial counsel labored under a conflict of interest in his representation, depriving Morales of effective assistance of counsel. We agree. The record indicates that Morales’ counsel was subject to personal concerns regarding the effect of his trial conduct. Those concerns constituted the active representation of “ ‘conflicting interests’ ” which “ ‘adversely affected his ... performance,’ ” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 692, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2067, 80 L.Ed.2d 674, 696 (1984) (quoting Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 350, 348, 100 S.Ct. 1708, 1719, 1718, 64 L.Ed.2d 333, 346-47, 347 (1980)), and inhibited the zealous representation required of attorneys. Von Moltke v. Gillies, 332 U.S. 708, 68 S.Ct. 316, 92 L.Ed. 309 (1948). See generally, United States v. Barnes, 662 F.2d 777 (D.C.Cir.1980); United States v. Hurt, 543 F.2d 162 (D.C.Cir.1976); Commonwealth v. Duffy, 483 Pa. 170, 394 A.2d 965 (1978). We therefore vacate the order of the trial court, reverse the judgment, and remand for a new trial.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

513 So. 2d 695, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2160, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 12152, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morales-v-state-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack