sunEthics

Per Fla. Supreme Court, public defender's certification of conflict does not automatically shift representation to RCC, but RCC has no standing to object to P.D.'s motion to withdraw.  [Added 1/14/12]

    The Florida Supreme Court approved in part and quashed in part the Fourth DCA's decision in Johnson v. State, 6 So.2d 1262 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) and disapproved the Third DCA's decision in State v. Public Defender, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, 12 So.3d 798 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009), review granted 34 So.3d 2 (Fla. 2010).  The Court concluded:  (1) that a public defender's certification of conflict does not by itself shift the representation to the Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel ("RCC"); and (2) that the RCC has no standing to object to the public defender's conflict-based motion to withdraw.

    Effect of certification of conflict.  In Johnson the Fourth DCA decided that, under the plain language of Fla.Stat. sec. 27.511(8) (2008), in appellate matters a public defender's certification of conflict alone was sufficient to shift the conflict representation to the RCC.  In other words, the appellate court was not authorized to inquire into the matter but must rely on the public defender's certification.  The Supreme Court rejected this interpretation, concluding that the Fourth DCA's position was not consistent with legislative history or intent.  "We reject the public defender's argument that this statute [Fla.Stat. sec. 27.5303(1)(a) (2008)] cannot apply to appellate courts because appellate courts do not conduct hearings as the second sentence of the statute provides.  In fact, appellate courts do review motions for their adequacy and can direct further inquiry on motions through orders to show cause or by scheduling oral argument.  Moreover, when section 27.511(8) and section 27.5303(1)(a) are read in pari materia, there is no contradiction in the statutes and one can discern a reconciled legislative intent that courts review all motions to withdraw, at both the trial and appellate level, and make further inquiry if necessary.  . . .  [W]e hold that section 27.5303(1)(a) governs all public defender motions to withdraw based on conflict, both at the trial and appellate level, and the court where the motion is filed is required to review such motions for sufficiency."

    Standing to object to conflict-based motion to withdraw.  The Court also ruled that the RCC has no standing to object to a public defender's good faith motion to withdraw based on asserted conflict.  "Because RCC is not a party, it is not in the best position to address the determination of conflict."  Johnson v. State of Florida, __ So.3d ___ (Fla., No. SC09-1045, 1/5/2012).

sunEthics is produced by Tim Chinaris, and hosted by Faulkner University, Thomas Goode Jones School of Law.  Please read our disclaimers.  Search our site, or view previously posted summaries using our SUBJECT INDEX.  © 2012