WILSON v. STATE (2024)

Affirmed. See Torres v. State, 42 So. 3d 910, 912 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (“This court reviews whether a trial court conducted an adequate Nelson inquiry for an abuse of discretion. Generally, the trial court's ruling may also be reviewed to determine whether the error was harmless.”); Kott v. State, 518 So. 2d 957, 958-59 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (“The most important circumstance militating in favor of affirmance, however, is the fact that the appellant proceeded to trial with his court-appointed counsel, and made no additional attempt to dismiss counsel or request self-representation. Similarly, there is no evidence in the record of any conflict or lack of communication during the trial between appellant and his attorney that would support a finding that the appellant did not receive an adequate defense ․ [A]fter denial of his motion, [the defendant] accepted court-appointed counsel without any allegation of additional conflict or dissatisfaction.”); Sweat v. State, 895 So. 2d 462, 465 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (“Under Nelson, the trial court should have informed [the defendant] that if he dismissed his current attorney, a second state-appointed attorney may not be provided. However, the trial court's failure to give this advice to [the defendant] is subject to the harmless error test. Because [the defendant] never discharged his attorney, the court's failure to advise him that a second attorney may not be appointed if he dismissed his current attorney was harmless.”).

PER CURIAM.