Opinion ID: 1789708
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: client waiver

Text: We decline to adopt a client waiver provision that would allow a capital defendant to waive any of the requirements of rule 3.112. As pointed out by the FACDL, a capital defendant rarely retains private counsel and most private attorneys who would undertake such representation already meet the rule 3.112 standards. Further, if exceptional circumstances require representation by private counsel not meeting the requirements of the rule, the court may allow the representation in accordance with subdivision (k). As to conflict counsel or the public defenders, we can see no valid reason to allow an indigent defendant to waive the requirements of the rule as they apply to these court-appointed attorneys. An indigent defendant does not have a right to insist on representation by an attorney appointed by the court at taxpayer expense. Cf. Wheat, 486 U.S. at 159, 108 S.Ct. 1692 (recognizing that a defendant may not insist on representation by an attorney he cannot afford). Moreover, there is legitimate concern that allowing a capital defendant to waive the requirements of the rule would undercut the rule's purpose of ensuring that competent representation will be provided to capital defendants in all cases and could result in later claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.