Thompson v. State, 174 So. 3d 453

Thompson was charged with capital sexual battery of a 6‑year‑old and proceeded to trial with appointed counsel.
At an October 3, 2013 pretrial conference before Judge Arnold, Thompson briefly said he wanted his attorney “dismissed” immediately after counsel warned a continuance might be needed; the court did not further inquire at that time.
Jury selection and trial proceeded before a different judge (Judge Bass) on October 7, 10–11; Thompson participated in jury selection, accepted the jury, and raised no complaints about counsel before or during trial.
No written motion alleging ineffective assistance or seeking discharge of counsel was filed by Thompson; he filed other pro se motions in the case, showing he could have raised issues.
Thompson was convicted and sentenced to life. He appealed, arguing the trial court erred by failing to conduct a Nelson hearing (preliminary inquiry into a defendant’s request to discharge appointed counsel).

Issue	Thompson's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether Judge Arnold erred by failing to conduct a Nelson hearing after Thompson’s October 3 remark	Thompson contended his statement about having counsel “dismissed” required an immediate Nelson inquiry	The State argued the remark was equivocal, related to delay concerns, and no unequivocal request to discharge counsel was made	No error: the statement was equivocal and did not trigger a Nelson inquiry
Whether the comment implicated ineffective assistance of counsel	Thompson implied dissatisfaction amounting to a claim of ineffective assistance	The State argued the comment concerned trial scheduling/continuance (trial strategy), not incompetence	Court held the comment, read in context, related to wanting to avoid continuance, not a formal ineffective assistance claim
Whether any Nelson error was preserved or waived	Thompson relied on the October 3 statement as preserved error	The State argued Thompson waived the issue by failing to raise it later before Judge Bass, proceeding to trial, and not filing motions	Held waived: numerous later opportunities existed and Thompson voiced no objections; proceeding to trial with same counsel dissipated any claim
Whether relief is appropriate despite any Nelson error	Thompson sought reversal/remedy based on the alleged failure	The State urged affirmance due to equivocality and waiver	Affirmed: no reversible error; conviction and sentence upheld

Nelson v. State, 274 So.2d 256 (Fla. 1973) (establishes procedure for inquiry when defendant seeks discharge of appointed counsel)
Hardwick v. State, 521 So.2d 1071 (Fla. 1988) (adopts Nelson‑based preliminary inquiry requirement)
Davis v. State, 703 So.2d 1055 (Fla. 1997) (no Nelson inquiry required where request is not unequivocal)
Morrison v. State, 818 So.2d 432 (Fla. 2002) (general dissatisfaction or strategic disagreements do not mandate Nelson hearing)
McKenzie v. State, 29 So.3d 272 (Fla. 2010) (strategic trial decisions typically do not constitute ineffective assistance requiring Nelson inquiry)
Sweet v. State, 624 So.2d 1138 (Fla. 1993) (even where Nelson error occurred, subsequent acceptance of counsel can render the error moot)