Opinion ID: 1697443
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Inquiry Under Nelson v. State

Text: Gamble first alleges that a potential conflict of interest issue required the trial court to make an inquiry pursuant to Nelson v. State, 274 So.2d 256 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). He argues that because the court did not make that inquiry, Gamble did not know he had the right to represent himself. He states that had he known he could have represented himself, he might have requested to do so, and this request would have triggered the necessity for a hearing under Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975). Gamble also argues that to the extent this issue was not raised on direct appeal, appellate counsel was ineffective. When a defendant seeks to discharge court-appointed counsel on the ground of incompetency, the court must determine whether there is reasonable cause to believe appointed counsel is not rendering effective assistance to the defendant. If there is reasonable cause to believe counsel is not rendering effective assistance, the court should discharge counsel and appoint substitute counsel. If the trial court finds that there is not reasonable cause to discharge counsel, the court should advise the defendant that if appointed counsel is discharged without cause, the defendant may be required to proceed to trial without court-appointed representation. See Nelson v. State, 274 So.2d at 258-59. A defendant may waive the right to court-appointed counsel and choose to proceed without counsel as long as the waiver is knowing and intelligent. See Faretta, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525. Thus, when a defendant alleges that court-appointed counsel is incompetent, the trial judge must first determine whether counsel is incompetent. If the trial judge determines counsel is not incompetent and the defendant still insists on discharging the attorney, under Nelson, the judge must inform the defendant that he or she may have to continue without representation. If the defendant decides to continue without representation, the dictates of Faretta are triggered, and the trial court must determine whether the defendant's decision is knowingly and intelligently made. The combined effect of Nelson and Faretta is to ensure that a defendant who chooses to proceed without counsel after waiving court-appointed counsel has done so knowingly and intelligently. See Knight v. State, 770 So.2d 663, 666 (Fla.2000). Gamble never requested that his court-appointed counsel be discharged based on counsel's alleged incompetency. In fact, Gamble did not articulate any complaint with counsel's representation. Before trial, on two occasions, Gamble's counsel asked him to sign a waiver of potential conflict based on personnel in the public defender's office who had personal relationships with personnel in the State Attorney's office and with codefendant Michael Love's attorney. Gamble testified that he did not believe there to be any conflict; however, he assumed that there must have been one, otherwise his attorney would not be seeking the waiver. He refused to sign the waiver form. At a pretrial hearing, Gamble's trial counsel explained to the judge that he drafted a consent and waiver form, that Gamble had reservations about signing it, and that Gamble told counsel that the form caused him to mistrust his attorney and the public defender's office. Counsel stated that Gamble then requested substitute counsel. Counsel told Gamble that he could make the motion to the judge himself. When Gamble appeared in court to move for new counsel, he told the court that he did not distrust his attorney, that he did not see a problem with any potential conflict, but that he felt there must be a conflict or else counsel would not be seeking a waiver. The judge asked Gamble if he knew of anything his attorney had done that was inappropriate or improper in his representation. Gamble replied that he did not. Gamble told the judge that his request for new counsel was based on his feeling that there was a potential conflict. The court then questioned Gamble's defense counsel, codefendant's counsel Michael Graves and Michelle Morley, the Chief Assistant Public Defender Michael Johnson, and Assistant Public Defender Hugh Lee. Each denied knowing of any improper or inappropriate exchanges of information among the attorneys, or any other reason for ending the Public Defender's participation in the case. After taking the testimony, the court found that there was no grounds for removal of Gamble's attorney and there was no evidence to support appointment of new counsel. In order to establish an ineffectiveness claim premised on an alleged conflict of interest, the defendant must establish that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyer's performance. Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 350, 100 S.Ct. 1708, 64 L.Ed.2d 333 (1980); see also Quince v. State, 732 So.2d 1059, 1065 (Fla.1999). A lawyer suffers from an actual conflict of interest when he or she actively represent[s] conflicting interests. Cuyler, 446 U.S. at 350, 100 S.Ct. 1708. The defendant must therefore identify specific evidence in the record showing that his or her interests were compromised in order to demonstrate actual conflict. See Herring v. State, 730 So.2d 1264, 1267 (Fla.1998). A possible, speculative or merely hypothetical conflict is insufficient to impugn a criminal conviction. Cuyler, 446 U.S. at 350, 100 S.Ct. 1708. Because Gamble's only allegation was that there might be a conflict, and because Gamble was unable to identify any manner in which that suspected conflict affected his counsel's competency to represent him, the need for a Nelson inquiry was never triggered. See Gaines v. State, 706 So.2d 47, 49 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (holding that [w]hile a conflict of interest may adversely effect [sic] an attorney's representation, the mere allegation of a conflict does not give rise to the necessity of conducting a Nelson inquiry). Gamble's assertion that there was a potential for conflict falls short of demonstrating that a conflict existed, that counsel was incompetent, or that a Nelson hearing was required. In addition, no Faretta inquiry was necessary in this case because Gamble never asked to represent himself. See Teffeteller v. Dugger, 734 So.2d 1009, 1028 (Fla.1999) (holding that a defendant who does not make a request to represent himself is not entitled to a Faretta inquiry). We also find no merit in Gamble's assertion that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise this issue on appeal. Although a habeas petition is the proper vehicle by which to raise claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, Gamble's claim fails to demonstrate that appellate counsel's performance was deficient. See Suarez v. Dugger, 527 So.2d 190, 192-93 (Fla.1988) (holding that to demonstrate ineffectiveness of appellate counsel, the defendant must show that counsel's omissions constitute serious error or substantial deficiency falling measurably outside the range of professionally acceptable performance, and that such deficiency undermined confidence in the result on appeal). Because the trial court did not err in failing to make a Nelson or Faretta inquiry, Gamble cannot demonstrate that failure of appellate counsel to raise this issue undermined confidence in the outcome of the appeal.