Opinion ID: 1621175
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: failure to challenge trial court's finding after a nelson [12] inquiry

Text: Holland next argues that his appellate counsel was deficient for failing to raise the fact that his allegations during the Nelson inquiry were entirely unrefuted. [13] Therefore, Holland argues that the trial court's order following the inquiry was not supported by competent, substantial evidence, and appellate counsel was deficient for not raising this on appeal. We disagree. A review of the record reveals that the trial court's finding was well supported by competent, substantial evidence. The trial court's duty in a Nelson inquiry is to make a sufficient inquiry . . . to determine whether or not there is reasonable cause to believe that the court appointed counsel is not rendering effective assistance to the defendant. Nelson, 274 So.2d at 259. In Holland's case, the trial judge conducted an extensive inquiry into Holland's appointed counsel. The transcript of the Nelson inquiry covers almost 100 pages, and many of Holland's complaints were generalized grievances without any reference to a specific fact or area of law. His allegations that the attorneys were untruthful were not substantiated, and his counsel testified to extensive preparation for trial and the potential penalty phase. His counsel also testified to Holland's lack of cooperation with the State's mental health witness, lack of cooperation with defense counsel concerning trial preparation, and his refusal to discuss any defenses until he was able to discuss with the court issues that were troubling him. The trial court's finding is supported by competent, substantial evidence. Therefore, we deny relief.