Richardson v. State
The First DCA denied the Public Defender's motion and amended motion to withdraw as appellate counsel, finding that the office failed to adequately specify the nature and basis of the asserted conflict of interest that purportedly carried over from trial level representation. The court held that generic assertions of an 'ethical duty to a current client' conflict, without more specificity, are insufficient under section 27.5303(1) and Rule 4-1.7(a).
Key facts
- Richardson was convicted at trial and appealed with Public Defender representation on appeal.
- The Public Defender's Office moved to withdraw as appellate counsel, asserting a conflict of interest based on ethical duties to another client that allegedly carried over from trial-level representation.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This opinion is useful to both public defenders and courts handling conflict-based withdrawal motions, clarifying that conclusory assertions of conflict are insufficient and that movants must provide enough detail… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.