JON W. HAY
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA

Fla. 2d DCA | 2022-09-21
No. 21-2167
Smith, J., Silberman, J., Lucas, J., Kyle, J.
Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (2022)

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.

Holding

A trial court departs from the essential requirements of law when it denies a public defender's request to withdraw based on an alleged conflict of interest by requiring disclosure of privileged and confidential information, thereby forcing the public defender to choose between violating ethical duties and being permitted to withdraw.

Headnotes

[1] A trial court departs from the essential requirements of law when it denies a public defender's request to withdraw based on an alleged conflict of interest by requiring…

[2] A defendant has a constitutional right to be represented by conflict-free counsel, and a trial court cannot force a public defender to choose between violating ethical du…

Previewing 2 of 4 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
Key Quotes

“The trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law because it necessarily compelled the assistant public defender to make the unsavory choice between disclosing privileged information and potentially being permitted to withdraw or depriving his client of the constitutional right to be represented by conflict-free counsel.”

This establishes the core principle that trial courts cannot force public defenders to choose between ethical duties and withdrawal when a conflict is asserted.

Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence
Facts & Procedural History

Jon Hay was represented by the public defender's office. The assistant public defender filed an amended certification of conflict alleging that Hay's …

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.

Topics
Petition For Writ Of Certiorari

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Petition For Writ Of Certiorari cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
Lucas

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

JON W. HAY, Petitioner, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. No. 2D21-2167 September 21, 2022 Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Lee County; Bruce E. Kyle, Judge. Kathleen A. Smith, Public Defender, and Nicole Calderone, Assistant Public Defender, Fort Myers, for Petitioner. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Elba Caridad Martin, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Respondent. SMITH, Judge. This is a petition seeking certiorari review of an order denying the public defender's request to withdraw as appointed counsel based on an alleged conflict. We grant the petition because, under

2 the circumstances presented by this case and the existing case law, the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law in denying the request to withdraw. In keeping with language used in similar cases, the conflict in this case was articulated as related to the representation of Jon Hay and another defendant represented by the same office or with an attorney in that office, and it apparently arose from a conversation between Mr. Hay and his appointed assistant public defender when Mr. Hay was in the State Hospital. In the amended certification of conflict, the assistant public defender alleged: After a careful investigation and weighing of the facts of this case, the Public Defender has conclusively determined that the interests of Jon Webster Hay are so adverse and hostile to those of another client and/or an attorney within the Office of the Public Defender that a conflict of interest exists. As a result of this conflict of interest, the Public Defender cannot adequately or ethically continue to represent the Defendant. At the hearing on the amended certification of conflict, the assistant public defender advised the trial court that she was ethically precluded from providing more specific information regarding the conflict than that provided in the amended

Footnotes
3 certification of conflict. Finding the amended certification of conflict insufficient, the trial court denied the request to withdraw because it was "unable to determine the nature of the asserted conflict from the generic form, and [was] thus unable to determine if the asserted conflict is prejudicial to the indigent client." Although we recognize and appreciate that trial courts are hamstrung by a statute which allows trial courts to conduct a hearing but precludes trial courts from asking much about the nature of the conflict in cases of alleged conflict like this, it was a departure from the essential requirements of law for the trial court here to deny the public defender's request to withdraw under the facts set forth in the requests and outlined in the transcripts of the hearings in this case. See § 27.5303(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2020); Young v. State, 189 So. 3d 956, 961 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) ("The trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law because it necessarily compelled the assistant public defender to make the unsavory choice between disclosing privileged information and potentially being permitted to withdraw or depriving his client of the constitutional right to be represented by conflict-free counsel."); see also Brower v. State, 267 So. 3d 524, 525 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019)
4 ("Even though the exact nature of the conflict was unknown, the trial court nevertheless departed from the essential requirements of law when it inquired into privileged and confidential matters and denied Petitioner's facially sufficient motion to withdraw."). The trial court's additionally stated conclusions regarding factual discrepancies or other reasons for seeking withdrawal also are not supported by the facts presented in the amended certification of conflict or within the transcripts of the related hearings. The arguments presented by the assistant public defender centered solely around particular information received in a conversation between Mr. Hay and his appointed counsel.1 Cf. 1 When reviewing an order via certiorari our review is limited by the appendices filed by the parties. We do not have the benefit of the entire record before us. We recognize that there may be facts and details in the full trial court record that could factor into the trial court's reasons for denying the request to withdraw that remain unknown to this court and are outside the body of what we are tasked with considering within the petition presented. Likewise, the relief available through certiorari review is limited to quashing the order under review. Beyond recognizing the applicable cases and rules and acknowledging the understandable frustration of a trial court tasked with making a determination under circumstances where cases have made clear that full disclosure is not possible due to the asserted privilege, we make no comment on whether the public defender must be permitted to withdraw
5 Gordineer v. State, 335 So. 3d 232, 236 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022) ("[T]here is no record basis to believe that Gordineer's claim has been manufactured for the purpose of manipulating the system. On these facts, the circuit court's concern that Gordineer was shopping for a new attorney was completely unfounded."). We therefore grant the petition and quash the order denying the public defender the ability to withdraw from its representation of Mr. Hay. Petition granted; order quashed. SILBERMAN and LUCAS, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication. following this opinion should the record and case law support such a determination.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw