From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cankur v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Mar 6, 1998
706 So. 2d 944 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

Summary

quashing order denying disqualification due to irreconcilable conflict arising from defense counsel's prior representation of state witness, notwithstanding state's subsequent offer not to call that witness at trial

Summary of this case from Siddhartha Pagidipati v. Vyas

Opinion

Case No 98-0475.

Opinion filed March 6, 1998. JANUARY TERM 1998.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Richard D. Eade, Judge; L.T. Case No. 97-2865 CF10A.

Alan H. Schreiber, Public Defender, and Donald J. Cannarozzi, Assistant Public Defender, Fort Lauderdale, for petitioner.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jeanine M. Germanowicz, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for respondent.


We grant this petition for writ of certiorari, and quash the trial court's order denying the assistant public defender's motion to withdraw as counsel of record.

In his motion, the assistant public defender certified that he was required to withdraw due to an irreconcilable conflict of interest because his office had previously represented an individual identified as a state witness in the instant prosecution. At a hearing on the motion, the State represented that it would not call this individual to testify. The public defender maintained that this would not cure the problem because the interests of the two clients remained so adverse and hostile that both clients could not be represented without a conflict of interest. The trial court found that the State's offer to refrain from calling the witness removed any potential conflict of interest, and denied the motion to withdraw.

We find that under the circumstances of this case, the trial court was required to grant the motion to withdraw without reweighing the facts considered by the public defender in determining and certifying that a conflict exists. See Guzman v. State, 654 So.2d 996 (Fla. 1994); Hope v. State, 654 So.2d 639 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); see also Crowe v. State, 701 So.2d 431 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997).

Petition for Writ of Certiorari Granted; Order Quashed.

STEVENSON, GROSS, JJ., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., JR., Senior Judge, concur.


Summaries of

Cankur v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Mar 6, 1998
706 So. 2d 944 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

quashing order denying disqualification due to irreconcilable conflict arising from defense counsel's prior representation of state witness, notwithstanding state's subsequent offer not to call that witness at trial

Summary of this case from Siddhartha Pagidipati v. Vyas
Case details for

Cankur v. State

Case Details

Full title:GUVEN CANKUR, Petitioner, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Date published: Mar 6, 1998

Citations

706 So. 2d 944 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

Citing Cases

Terry v. State

We recognize that in light of counsel's certification of conflict, the trial court had no discretion to deny…

Siddhartha Pagidipati v. Vyas

We also reject Mr. Vyas's contention that the conflict issue was rendered moot when Mr. Thanasides filed a…