Opinion ID: 1571058
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Nelson Hearing

Text: Next, McLean argues that that the trial court erred in conducting a portion of the Nelson hearing in camera, outside McLean's presence. We disagree. Before trial, McLean sent a letter to the trial court requesting that he be assigned new counsel, and the trial court held a Nelson hearing to consider McLean's several grievances. During the Nelson hearing, McLean told the court that he had provided his counsel with the names of alibi witnesses but that they never wanted to go speak to the people. The trial court allowed defense counsel to respond in camera, outside the earshot of McLean or the State, to that particular issue so that it would not be on record with the State. Defense counsel adequately explained, to the trial court's satisfaction, her investigator's discussions with the alibi witnesses identified by McLean and her decision not to pursue their use as witnesses. No error occurred when McLean could not hear a portion of the Nelson hearing proceedings because McLean was not entitled to a Nelson hearing on the issue being discussed. This Court has held that a defendant is not entitled to a Nelson hearing where a defendant presents general complaints about defense counsel's trial strategy and no formal allegations of incompetence have been made. Morrison v. State, 818 So.2d 432, 440 (Fla.2002); see also Sexton v. State, 775 So.2d 923, 931 (Fla.2000) (holding that the defendant was not entitled to a Nelson hearing when he was merely noting his disagreement with his attorney's trial strategy ... and was not asserting a sufficient basis to support a contention that his attorney was incompetent). Here, McLean's argument regarding the alibi issue raised disagreement with trial strategy and did not assert a sufficient basis to support a contention that his attorneys were incompetent. See Morrison, 818 So.2d at 442. Furthermore, as in Morrison, 818 So.2d at 442, the trial court made sufficient inquiry to determine whether there was reasonable cause to believe that counsel was not rendering effective assistance. Therefore, we find McLean's Nelson argument to be without merit.