ANTONIO RICHARDSON v. STATE OF FLORIDA (2023)

OPINION ON MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL

The Court denies the Office of the Public Defender, Second Judicial Circuit's motion to withdraw, docketed on September 7, 2022, and amended motion to withdraw, docketed on September 12, 2022. Movant asserts that the Office of the Public Defender withdrew from Mr. Richardson's case at the trial level “due to conflict based on an ethical duty to a current client” and that “[t]his conflict remains on appeal,” but she fails to adequately specify the nature and basis of the asserted conflict. See R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-1.7(a) (providing that a lawyer must not represent a client if “the representation of 1 client will be directly adverse to another client” or “there is a substantial risk that the representation of 1 or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client ․”); see also § 27.5303(1), Fla. Stat. (2022) (“The court shall review and may inquire or conduct a hearing into the adequacy of the public defender's representations regarding a conflict of interest without requiring the disclosure of any confidential communications. The court shall deny the motion to withdraw if the court finds the grounds for withdrawal are insufficient or the asserted conflict is not prejudicial to the indigent client.”). The insufficiency in the asserted ground for withdrawal also hinders the Court in “making a determination of whether the asserted conflict is prejudicial to the client.” See Johnson v. State, 78 So. 3d 1305, 1312 (Fla. 2012).

PER CURIAM.

LEWIS, B.L. THOMAS, and WINOKUR, JJ., concur.