Pena v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Pena v. State

706 So. 2d 1378, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 2158, 1998 WL 88371

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 4, 1998

DocketNo. 97-4395

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 706 So. 2d 1378 (Pena 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

Pena v. State, 706 So. 2d 1378, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 2158, 1998 WL 88371 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner filed a petition for writ of certio-rari to quash the order of the trial court denying the office of the public defender’s motion to withdraw from representation of petitioner in connection with two felony matters. The public defender’s motion to withdraw explains that petitioner developed a hostile relationship with assistant public defender Louis Townsend and “certified” that there was a conflict of interest necessitating his withdrawal. The trial court, however, noted that the conflict was unique and between petitioner and Townsend only. It permitted Townsend to withdraw but declined to permit the entire office of the public defender to withdraw.

In its petition, the office of the public defender claims that the trial court was required to grant the motion to withdraw based on Guzman v. State, 644 So.2d 996 (Fla.1994). In that ease, the court held that the office of the public defender is allowed to withdraw when the public defender certifies that there is a conflict of interest between two clients of the office. It does not speak to a conflict of the personal nature such as the one in this case.

We hold that there was no departure from the essential requirements of law in the trial court’s refusal to permit the entire office of the public defender to withdraw.

GLICKSTEIN, WARNER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner filed a petition for writ of certio-rari to quash the order of the trial court denying the office of the public defender’s motion to withdraw from representation of petitioner in connection with two felony matters. The public defender’s motion to withdraw explains that petitioner developed a hostile relationship with assistant public defender Louis Townsend and “certified” that there was a conflict of interest necessitating his withdrawal. The trial court, however, noted that the conflict was unique and between petitioner and Townsend only. It permitted Townsend to withdraw but declined to permit the entire office of the public defender to withdraw.

In its petition, the office of the public defender claims that the trial court was required to grant the motion to withdraw based on Guzman v. State, 644 So.2d 996 (Fla.1994). In that ease, the court held that the office of the public defender is allowed to withdraw when the public defender certifies that there is a conflict of interest between two clients of the office. It does not speak to a conflict of the personal nature such as the one in this case.

We hold that there was no departure from the essential requirements of law in the trial court’s refusal to permit the entire office of the public defender to withdraw.

GLICKSTEIN, WARNER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

706 So. 2d 1378, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 2158, 1998 WL 88371, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pena-v-state-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack