180 So. 3d 929
Fla.2015Background
- Off-duty officer stopped a car; two occupants (Alexis and Guerrier) were identified by a victim; two loaded guns were found.
- Guerrier made a post-arrest statement implicating Alexis; the State expected to introduce that statement at trial.
- One attorney represented both codefendants; defense counsel told the court he had discussed possible conflict with both clients, and both defendants on the record said they wanted joint representation.
- Defendants were tried jointly, both testified, and Alexis was convicted of aggravated assault with a firearm.
- On appeal the First DCA concluded the trial court’s on-the-record colloquy was insufficient to show a valid waiver of conflict-free counsel and reversed; the State sought review arguing a waiver is required only when an actual conflict exists.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Alexis's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a trial court must obtain a Larzelere-type on-the-record waiver whenever potential conflict from joint representation is raised, even absent an actual conflict | Waiver/inquiry required only if there is an actual conflict that adversely affected counsel’s performance; multiple representation alone does not trigger Larzelere | Any time court is informed of a possible conflict an inquiry is required and a valid waiver must be obtained; failure requires reversal | The court held a Larzelere waiver/inquiry is not required absent an actual conflict; because no actual conflict was shown, the trial court did not need to conduct the full waiver colloquy and Alexis’s conviction is affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Gorby v. State, 630 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 1993) (no Larzelere waiver required absent proof an actual conflict affected counsel’s performance)
- Dixon v. State, 758 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (must first determine whether an actual conflict existed before addressing waiver)
- Lee v. State, 690 So. 2d 664 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (trial court must inquire or appoint separate counsel when counsel discloses a possible conflict; Larzelere waiver needed when an actual conflict exists)
- Larzelere v. State, 676 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 1996) (establishes three-part test for valid waiver: awareness of conflict, that it could affect defense, and right to other counsel)
- Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (U.S. 1980) (to obtain relief when representation was joint and not objected to, defendant must show an actual conflict that adversely affected counsel’s performance)
- Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475 (U.S. 1978) (when counsel timely objects to joint representation, trial court must appoint separate counsel or ascertain whether risk of conflict is too remote)
- Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60 (U.S. 1942) (forced joint representation over objection may deny effective assistance of counsel; prejudice presumed)
- Mickens v. Taylor, 535 U.S. 162 (U.S. 2002) (the phrase "actual conflict" requires a showing the conflict affected counsel’s performance)