Case Name: Anthony Jerome BODIFORD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1995-12-18
Citations: 665 So. 2d 315
Docket Number: No. 94-3073
Parties: Anthony Jerome BODIFORD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: ERVIN and MICKLE, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 665
Pages: 315–317

Head Matter:
Anthony Jerome BODIFORD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 94-3073.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Dec. 18, 1995.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 24, 1996.
Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, Chet Kaufman, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Daniel A. David, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We reverse appellant's conviction for trafficking in cocaine, because the trial court failed to conduct a full Nelson inquiry after appellant requested the appointment of substitute counsel.
Although appellant's motion was one styled for continuance, the substance of his motion involved a challenge to his attorney's competence. Therefore, the court was required to make a full Nelson inquiry. See Hardwick v. State, 521 So.2d 1071, 1074-75 (Fla.) (quoting Nelson v. State, 274 So.2d 256, 258-59 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973) (citation omitted)), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 871, 109 S.Ct. 185, 102 L.Ed.2d 154 (1988). The court satisfied the first prong of the Nelson test by questioning both appellant and his counsel, but after determining that there was no reasonable basis to discharge the attorney, the court failed to satisfy the second prong of Nelson, that is, it did not advise appellant that if he continued his request to discharge counsel, a new lawyer would not be appointed, nor did it inform appellant of his right to self-representation. See, e.g., Douglass v. State, 634 So.2d 693 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Taylor v. State, 557 So.2d 138 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).
In so saying, we reject the state's argument that Smith v. State, 641 So.2d 1819 (Fla.1994), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1129, 130 L.Ed.2d 1091 (1995), and Capehart v. State, 583 So.2d 1009 (Fla.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1065, 112 S.Ct. 955, 117 L.Ed.2d 122 (1992), overruled cases such as Douglass and Taylor sub silentio. Unlike Douglass and Taylor, neither Smith nor Capehart addressed allegations of incompetency, rather they involved mere expressions of dissatisfaction with counsel. The law is clear that a trial court need only conduct a Nelson inquiry if the defendant questions the attorney's competence. Smith, 641 So.2d at 1321 (defendant expressed dissatisfaction, but did not question attorney's competence); Kearse v. State, 605 So.2d 534, 536 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (Nelson inquiry was not required for conflict-of-interest and bias claims made in motion to discharge), review denied, 613 So.2d 5 (Fla.1993); Johnson v. State, 560 So.2d 1239, 1240 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (trial court is not required to conduct a full Nelson inquiry when conflict, not incompetency, is the basis for the motion to discharge).
As the state has failed to argue the error was harmless, we REVERSE and REMAND for new trial. See, e.g., Douglass.
ERVIN and MICKLE, JJ., concur.
LAWRENCE, J., dissents with opinion.
. Nelson v. State, 274 So.2d 256 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973).