Sheffield v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sheffield v. State

725 So. 2d 1229, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 323, 1999 WL 18432

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 20, 1999

DocketNo. 98-3783

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 725 So. 2d 1229 (Sheffield 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

Sheffield v. State, 725 So. 2d 1229, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 323, 1999 WL 18432 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner is represented by the public defender in two criminal cases. The public defender certified to the trial judge that he has a conflict of interest requiring withdrawal in both cases because his office represents a woman who is named as a state witness in only one of the cases. The trial judge permitted withdrawal in the case in which the woman had been named as a witness, but denied leave to withdraw in the other case. The Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Guzman v. State, 644 So.2d 996 (Fla.1994), leaves us no choice but to grant the petition. Guzman makes it clear that under section 27.53, Florida Statutes, the trial court had no discretion in this matter. See also Leslie v. State, 720 So.2d 559, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D2092 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Filan v. State, 720 So.2d 549, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D1880 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Reardon v. State, 715 So.2d 348 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).

We grant certiorari, quash the order denying leave to withdraw, and instruct the trial judge to appoint different counsel. As we did in Reardon, we conclude that any other result would require a legislative change and again decline to certify the question as a matter of great public importance.

GUNTHER, GROSS, JJ., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Senior Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner is represented by the public defender in two criminal cases. The public defender certified to the trial judge that he has a conflict of interest requiring withdrawal in both cases because his office represents a woman who is named as a state witness in only one of the cases. The trial judge permitted withdrawal in the case in which the woman had been named as a witness, but denied leave to withdraw in the other case. The Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Guzman v. State, 644 So.2d 996 (Fla.1994), leaves us no choice but to grant the petition. Guzman makes it clear that under section 27.53, Florida Statutes, the trial court had no discretion in this matter. See also Leslie v. State, 720 So.2d 559, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D2092 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Filan v. State, 720 So.2d 549, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D1880 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Reardon v. State, 715 So.2d 348 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).

We grant certiorari, quash the order denying leave to withdraw, and instruct the trial judge to appoint different counsel. As we did in Reardon, we conclude that any other result would require a legislative change and again decline to certify the question as a matter of great public importance.

GUNTHER, GROSS, JJ., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Senior Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

725 So. 2d 1229, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 323, 1999 WL 18432, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sheffield-v-state-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack