Opinion ID: 1789708
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: committee comment

Text: The committee comment following the proposed rule provides in pertinent part: These standards are not intended to establish any independent legal rights. For example, the failure to appoint cocounsel, standing alone, has not been recognized as a ground for relief from a conviction or sentence. See Ferrell v. State, 653 So.2d 367 (Fla.1995); Lowe v. State, 650 So.2d 969 (Fla.1994); Armstrong v. State, 642 So.2d 730 (Fla.1994). Rather, these cases stand for the proposition that a showing of inadequacy of representation in the particular case is required. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). These rulings are not affected by the adoption of these standards. Any claims of ineffective assistance of counsel will be controlled by Strickland. The Florida Public Defender Association expresses concern about this language, urging that [f]irst, it is not appropriate for the Court in a rule to determine whether or not separate causes of action may arise from the rule in a particular case yet to be litigated, and that [s]econd, the Association is concerned that language in the comment may be interpreted by some to undermine the requirement that there be qualified, effective counsel at every stage of a capital case, thereby undermining the significance of rule 3.112 itself. The comment is that of the Committee. It is included in the rule for explanation and guidance only and is not adopted by this Court as an official part of the rules. The concerns raised by the Association are more appropriately addressed in a true case and controversy.