Opinion ID: 1822567
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Motion for Appointment of Co-Counsel

Text: Kearse next argues that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise on appeal the trial court's denial of defense counsel's motion for appointment of co-counsel at the 1991 trial. Shortly after his appointment, defense counsel moved for appointment of co-counsel on numerous grounds. After a hearing, the trial court denied the motion and denied the renewed motion before the first penalty phase. In Armstrong v. State, 642 So.2d 730, 737 (Fla.1994), we stated that the question of appointment of additional counsel rests within the discretion of the trial court and is based on a determination of the complexity of a given case and the attorney's effectiveness therein. The record shows that trial counsel agreed with the trial court that the case was not complex, and Kearse does not claim here that it was. Accordingly, Kearse has not established that the motion for co-counsel would have been found meritorious on direct appeal and thus has failed to establish ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.