Johnson v. State
78 So. 3d 1305
| Fla. | 2012Background
- Johnson and Mayfield were charged with robbery with a firearm and carjacking in Broward County; Johnson, due to conflict, was represented by private counsel paid by the State.
- The appellate public defender sought to withdraw from Johnson’s appeal because Mayfield’s codefendant representation created conflicts; RCC objected to the withdrawal.
- The Fourth District granted the PD’s withdrawal and appointed RCC to represent Johnson, holding that the PD’s certification of conflict alone shifted representation to RCC under 27.511(8).
- The Fourth District held that 27.5303(1)(a) only permits trial-court inquiries into the adequacy of the PD’s conflict representations, not appellate review, thereby eliminating RCC standing to object.
- RCC sought Supreme Court review, arguing express and direct conflict with the Third District’s Public Defender decision and asserting standing to oppose the PD’s motion to withdraw; the Court has jurisdiction to review.
- The Florida Supreme Court ultimately held that 27.5303(1)(a) governs all PD motions to withdraw for conflict (trial and appellate), and that RCC does not have standing to challenge the PD’s motion to withdraw in this context.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do 27.511(8) and 27.5303(1)(a) permit appellate review of a public defender’s withdrawal motion? | RCC: statutes require court review and allow appellate inquiry into sufficiency. | Johnson: Fourth District’s reading correct; appellate review not required. | 27.5303(1)(a) governs all withdrawal motions; appellate review is permissible. |
| Does RCC have standing to oppose a public defender’s motion to withdraw? | RCC: has a concrete, injurious interest and a statutory duty to represent indigents when PD withdraws. | Johnson: RCC lacks standing because not a party and conflict resolution is handled by PD and court. | RCC does not have standing to challenge the PD’s withdrawal motion. |
| Is the Fourth District’s interpretation of 27.511(8) and 27.5303(1)(a) consistent with legislative history and intent? | RCC contends the statutes were intended to permit review and safeguarding against unnecessary withdrawals. | State/Johnson contends that the PD’s certification alone transfers to RCC without appellate review. | The majority construes the statutes to require review of withdrawal motions at both trial and appellate levels. |
| Does the decision below affect the powers of public defenders to withdraw from cases? | RCC argues the ruling expands PD withdrawal powers by automatic RCC assignment on appellate conflict. | Johnson argues no such broader impact beyond the specific case. | The decision partially approves and partially quashes; it recognizes policy implications but focuses on statutory interpretation and standing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Guzman v. State, 644 So.2d 996 (Fla. 1994) (public defender withdrawal based on conflict; effects on representation)
- Escambia County v. Behr, 384 So.2d 147 (Fla. 1980) (trial court discretion to appoint counsel; standing not required for counties)
- In re Prosecution of Criminal Appeals by Tenth Judicial Circuit Public Defender, 561 So.2d 1130 (Fla. 1990) (standing of counties to be heard on PD withdrawal unlikely; due process context)
- State v. Public Defender, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, 12 So.3d 798 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (standings and intervention related to PD withdrawal motions)
- J.P. v. State, 907 So.2d 1101 (Fla. 2004) (standing framework and injury-in-fact considerations)