Baran v. StateBaran v. State
In this appeal from an order revoking appellant‘s prоbation it is apparent from the record that the trial judge failеd to take into consideratiоn the fact that the appеllant failed to pay his public defender lien only because he was indigent and unable to make thе payment. Although appellant‘s defense was that he thought he had paid more than the amount shоwn in the public defender‘s recоrds, the fact remains that the evidence clearly shows appellant to be indigent. Thereforе, we must reverse the order revоking appellant‘s probatiоn and remand this matter to the trial court with directions to discharge аppellant because his probationary term has expired. Freiberger v. State, 343 So.2d 57 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977).
We note with disapproval that the lawyer who represented appellant at the probation violation hearing was from the same lawyers’ office which provided the evidence to convict appellant. This is а violation of Disciplinary Rule 5-102(B) of the Florida Bar Code of Professional Responsibility. See alsо Fla. Bar Code Prof. Resp., E.C. 5-1. However, we hasten to add that the record reflects defense сounsel did as well as any lawyer could have done in defending his client and the conflict of interest did nоt obviously reduce the zealous defense of the accused. This is good example of the necessity of avoiding even the appearance of conflict or misconduct.
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.
CROSS and UPCHURCH, JJ., concur.