EARLINE BANKS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court reversed a conviction for violation of probation because the trial court erred in denying the public defender's motion to withdraw based on a conflict of interest arising from the office's prior representation of the victim.
A trial court must grant a public defender's motion to withdraw when the defender moves based on a conflict due to adverse or hostile interests between clients, and the trial court cannot reweigh the facts underlying the conflict determination.
[1] A trial court must grant a public defender's motion to withdraw based on a conflict of interest arising from adverse or hostile interests between clients and cannot rewei…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“[O]nce a public defender moves to withdraw from the representation of a client based on a conflict due to adverse or hostile interests between the two clients, under section 27.53(3), Florida Statutes (1991), a trial court must grant separate representation.... [A] trial court is not permitted to reweigh the facts considered by the public defender in determining that a conflict exists.”
The court quoted Guzman v. State to establish the controlling legal standard for public defender conflicts of interest.
Earline Banks was convicted of violation of probation. Her assistant public defender moved to withdraw, claiming a conflict of interest existed betwee…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Adverse Interest cases and more on FLexlaw
POLEN, Judge.
Earline Banks appeals from the denial of her assistant public defender’s motion to withdraw, and her subsequent conviction and sentence for violation of probation. The public defender claimed a conflict of interest existed between his continued representation of appellant and his office’s previous representation of the victim. We reverse in accordance with this court’s prior opinion in Hope v. State, 654 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), and the supreme court’s opinion in Guzman v. State, 644 So. 2d 996 (Fla.1994). In Guzman, the supreme court stated:
[O]nee a public defender moves to withdraw from the representation of a client based on a conflict due to adverse or hostile interests between the two clients, under section 27.53(3), Florida Statutes (1991), a trial court must grant separate representation.... [A] trial court is not permitted to reweigh the facts considered by the public defender in determining that a conflict exists. This is true even if the representation of one of the adverse clients has been concluded.
These rules leave little doubt that the trial court should have granted the assistant public defender’s motion to withdraw. Accordingly, we reverse the denial of the motion, as well as appellant’s conviction and sentence. Upon appointment of a special public defender, if appellant is still qualified therefor, the state may retry her on the violation of probation charges.
STONE and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Leslie v. State, 720 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…997); Guzman v. State, 644 So. 2d 996 (Fla.1994); Reardon v. State, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D1881, 715 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Costa v. State, 712 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Cankur v. State, 706 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Banks v. State, 661 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Crowe v. State, 701 So. 2d 431, 431-32 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (Dauksch, J., concurring specially). Therefore, we grant the petition, quash the order on review, and remand for the trial court to enter an order granting the motion to…
-
Mincey v. State, 666 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…ial court is not permitted to reweigh the facts considered by the public defender in determining that a conflict exists. This is true even if the representation of one of the adverse clients has been concluded. Id. at 1025. See also Banks v. State, 661 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Hope v. State, 654 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). Although section 27.53(3) speaks in terms of conflict arising “at any time during the representation of two or more indigents” (emphasis supplied), the court clearly stated in…
Authorities Cited
- Guzman v. State, 644 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 1994)
- Forrest Hope v. State, 654 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)