RUIZ v. STATE (2025)

Affirmed. See Smith v. State, 931 So. 2d 790, 807 (Fla. 2006) (“[Defendant] has no due process right to require his counsel to aid in the commission of a fraud upon the court by presenting perjurious testimony.” (citing DeHaven v. State, 618 So. 2d 337, 339 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (stating that defendant's constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel does not include right to require counsel to commit fraud on court))); cf. Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157, 173–74, 106 S.Ct. 988, 89 L.Ed.2d 123 (1986) (“[T]he right to counsel includes no right to have a lawyer who will cooperate with planned perjury. A lawyer who would so cooperate would be at risk of prosecution for suborning perjury, and disciplinary proceedings, including suspension or disbarment. [Counsel's] admonitions to [her] client can in no sense be said to have forced [defendant] into an impermissible choice between his right to counsel and his right to testify as he proposed for there was no permissible choice to testify falsely. For defense counsel to take steps to persuade a criminal defendant to testify truthfully, or to withdraw, deprives the defendant of neither his right to counsel nor the right to testify truthfully.”).

PER CURIAM.