Opinion ID: 1882379
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Denial of Nelson Inquiry

Text: Next, Stephens argues the trial court erred in denying him a Nelson [10] inquiry, after he raised the issue of counsel's competency. The record does not contain the handwritten note Stephens presented to the trial court expressing his concerns; however, the trial court characterized the concerns as a lack of contact between Stephens and his attorneys. Additionally, Stephens stated on the record that in addition to a lack of contact he was concerned with the failure of counsel to give him copies of paperwork. Thus, it is apparent that Stephens voiced dissatisfaction with counsel but did not actually question counsel's competency. Under such circumstances a full Nelson inquiry is not necessary. See Smith v. State, 641 So.2d 1319 (Fla.1994). Under the circumstances of this case, the trial court made an adequate inquiry into the complaint and properly remedied the problem by telling counsel to visit Stephens more frequently and provide him with the proper records. See Davis v. State, 703 So.2d 1055 (Fla.1997). Moreover, the record reflects Stephens subsequently expressed satisfaction with counsel. For example, on December 5, 1997, Stephens swore that he discussed all aspects of this case with his attorneys, did not want any delay, and wanted the trial to go forward as scheduled on December 8, 1997. Stephens did not tell the court that he was still dissatisfied with his counsel or that the lack of communication had not been remedied. On December 8, 1997, Stephens also signed a Plea of Guilty form that concerned charges integrally intertwined with those ultimately tried. In the plea form he agreed he had fully discussed all aspects of this case with his attorney. He also indicated to the court that he was satisfied with the services of his attorney in the case. In the plea colloquy, Stephens told the trial court that he had had enough time to discuss his case with his attorneys and that he was satisfied with the representation that they had given him in this case. Thus it is clear that the trial court sufficiently responded to Stephens' complaints about his appointed counsel. Additionally, Stephens demonstrated a subsequent satisfaction with his counsel which shows any possible error was harmless. See Scull v. State, 533 So.2d 1137, 1141 (Fla.1988) (stating any failings of the inquiry were mooted by defendant's expressions of satisfaction with counsel's representation).