Wellington v. Wainwright

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Wellington v. Wainwright

214 So. 2d 28, 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 4899

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 12, 1968

DocketNo. K-250

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 214 So. 2d 28 (Wellington v. Wainwright) 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

Wellington v. Wainwright, 214 So. 2d 28, 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 4899 (Fla. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

SPECTOR, Judge.

Appellant seeks reversal of an order denying his motion for postconviction relief.

Wellington and an accomplice were charged with armed robbery, and the public defender was appointed to represent them. They both entered guilty pleas in August, 1963. In March, 1968, appellant filed his motion to vacate judgment and sentence contending that he was entitled to his own appointed attorney, and that it was constitutional error to require him to share appointed counsel with his codefendant. In support of his claim, appellant relies on Baker v. State, 202 So.2d 563 (Fla.1967), holding that appointment of counsel to represent two or more defendants denies each of them the right to- effective assistance of counsel.

We reject appellant’s contention and affirm the order appealed. The instant case is factually distinguishable from Baker, supra, in that here there was no trial during the course of which it could be said that there might have arisen conflicting interests, strategies, or defenses which might have at once been detrimental to one of the codefendants and beneficial to his alleged colleague in crime.

In the case at bar, no opportunities for such conflicts existed since appellant and his codefendant both pled guilty. We hold, as did the District Court of Appeals, Second District, Mitchell v. State, 213 So. 2d 289, Opinion Filed August 14, 1968, that the rule in Baker, supra, is not applicable where the defendants entered guilty pleas.

Affirmed.

WIGGINTON, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., J., concur.

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

SPECTOR, Judge.

Appellant seeks reversal of an order denying his motion for postconviction relief.

Wellington and an accomplice were charged with armed robbery, and the public defender was appointed to represent them. They both entered guilty pleas in August, 1963. In March, 1968, appellant filed his motion to vacate judgment and sentence contending that he was entitled to his own appointed attorney, and that it was constitutional error to require him to share appointed counsel with his codefendant. In support of his claim, appellant relies on Baker v. State, 202 So.2d 563 (Fla.1967), holding that appointment of counsel to represent two or more defendants denies each of them the right to- effective assistance of counsel.

We reject appellant’s contention and affirm the order appealed. The instant case is factually distinguishable from Baker, supra, in that here there was no trial during the course of which it could be said that there might have arisen conflicting interests, strategies, or defenses which might have at once been detrimental to one of the codefendants and beneficial to his alleged colleague in crime.

In the case at bar, no opportunities for such conflicts existed since appellant and his codefendant both pled guilty. We hold, as did the District Court of Appeals, Second District, Mitchell v. State, 213 So. 2d 289, Opinion Filed August 14, 1968, that the rule in Baker, supra, is not applicable where the defendants entered guilty pleas.

Affirmed.

WIGGINTON, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

214 So. 2d 28, 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 4899, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wellington-v-wainwright-fladistctapp-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack