On Appeal: Public defenders may not automatically withdraw

Case: State v. Johnson

Case no.: SC09-1045

Topic: Criminal Practice

Opinion Issued: January 5, 2012

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Authoring Judge: Justice Peggy A. Quince

Dissenting Judge: Chief Justice Charles T. Canady

Lawyer for Appellant: Philip Massa, Director, and Melanie L. Casper, Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, West Palm Beach

Lawyer for Appellee: Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Paul E. Petillo, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach; Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Diane F. Medley, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach

Holding: The Florida Supreme Court concluded that Florida Statute “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.”

The Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel lacked standing to challenge a public defender’s motion to withdraw, the Florida Supreme Court held. But the court’s decision makes clear that a public defender may not automatically withdraw due to conflict of interest.

At trial, the public defender determined that the circumstances surrounding Johnson and Mayfield’s robbery and carjacking charges presented a conflict of interest.
Therefore, at the state’s expense, a private attorney was appointed to represent Johnson. Only after each co-defendant appealed his guilty verdict did the representation problems actually begin.

The appellate public defender withdrew — over regional conflict counsel’s objection — from representing Johnson. A conflict at the trial level was not tantamount to a conflict at the appellate level, the RCC argued. The public defender contended the RCC lacked standing to object. The 4th DCA agreed that the RCC lacked standing and, under the applicable statute, the public defender need only certify a conflict to withdraw.

On appeal, the Florida Supreme Court stressed that the U.S. and Florida constitutions provide criminal defendants with a right to effective assistance of counsel and that the “interests and defenses of most co-defendants are conflicting.” The Florida legislature established the RCC to serve as a “backup system” to protect these rights.

The 4th DCA erred when it found Florida Statute 27.511(8) was controlling with respect to appellate conflicts. Instead, the Florida Supreme Court relied on the plain language and legislative intent to conclude that Florida Statute section 27.5303 governs in such cases: “This language clearly indicates that the statute applies at any time a conflict arises, not just at the trial level. It also indicates that the public defender must file a motion to withdraw and that court review is mandatory.”

A key point on which the majority and the dissent diverged was with respect to RCC’s standing to object to motions to withdraw filed by public defenders. The majority found that RCC had no standing because it did not have a sufficient stake in the outcome. Affirming the 4th DCA on this point, the Florida Supreme Court reasoned, “because RCC is not a party, it is not in the best position to address the determination of conflict.”

Writing for the dissent, Chief Justice Charles T. Canady agreed that trial and appellate courts must review the sufficiency of motions to withdraw but disagreed that the RCC lacked standing to object. Specifically, “where RCC asserts factual allegations that—if proven—would establish that the public defender does not have cause for withdrawal, RCC should be considered to have standing to oppose the motion to withdraw. RCC will suffer an injury in fact if the public defender is permitted to wrongfully withdraw representation, and that injury can be avoided by judicial review of the motion to withdraw.”

Chief Justice Canady noted that the RCC’s objection had merit. Because Johnson and Mayfield’s records on appeal were complete and public record, RCC argued, the public defender could have represented the codefendants free of any conflict. This was in stark contrast to a meritless objection that the public defender was trying to use RCC as a “dumping zone” by withdrawing.

The Florida Supreme Court’s decision appears to leave open a narrow possibility for RCC to object in those instances where a public defender’s request to withdraw based on conflict is not made in good faith.

Student employee covered by worker’s compensation

A student who was jointly employed by her college and its affiliate and who was injured on campus while returning to work, is covered by worker’s compensation. The school also enjoys immunity in a negligence claim, the 1st DCA held.