Opinion ID: 1841380
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: special counsel

Text: Because during the penalty phase Grim refused to present any mitigation evidence, the trial court ordered the preparation of a presentence investigation and appointed Spyro Kypreos as special counsel to investigate and present available mitigation evidence at the Spencer hearing. Grim alleges that special counsel was ineffective because of an undisclosed conflict of interest related to Kypreos's representation of Tracy Coffey, an inmate at the same correctional facility where Grim was held awaiting trial. Coffey had been interviewed as a possible witness against Grim after informing the state attorney's office that while in custody Grim had confessed to Campbell's murder. Coffey did not testify at Grim's trial, and the relationship between Coffey and Kypreos was never disclosed to the defense or the trial court. Nevertheless, Grim argues that Kypreos had a conflict of interest that resulted in Kypreos providing inadequate representation. As explained below, this claim is meritless. When a defendant waives the presentation of mitigating evidence during the penalty phase, the trial court may appoint special counsel to present it. Muhammad, 782 So.2d at 364. As we explained, [a]ny counsel performing this function . . . [acts] solely as an officer of the court. Id. n. 15. Special counsel appointed in this capacity is assigned to represent the public interest and not the defendant. See Klokoc v. State, 589 So.2d 219, 220 (Fla.1991). Because the appointment of special counsel is solely at the discretion of the trial court, and because special counsel solely represents the public interest, no attorney-client relationship is established between special counsel and the defendant. Therefore, a defendant has no basis for claiming that special counsel's presentation of mitigation evidence was ineffective. Muhammad, 782 So.2d at 364 n. 15 (recognizing that a defendant who knowingly and intelligent[ly] waived the presentation of mitigating evidence . . . [is] barred from subsequently claiming that [special] counsel's performance was ineffective in the presentation of mitigating evidence). Kypreos did not represent Grim. Therefore, Grim cannot challenge the effectiveness of Kypreos's presentation of mitigation evidence, and the trial court properly denied Grim's claim.