Schluck v. State
The First DCA denied the Public Defender's motion and amended motion to withdraw from representing Schluck on appeal because the motions failed to specify the actual basis for the asserted 'irreconcilable conflict of interest.' The court held that bare assertions of conflict, without more, do not satisfy Rule 9.440(d) and Rule 2.505(f)(1)'s requirement to state reasons for withdrawal, and attached the Uniform Standards for Use in Conflict of Interest Cases as an appendix for future guidance.
Key facts
- Schluck was represented on appeal by the Public Defender's office, which filed a motion and amended motion to withdraw based on an asserted 'irreconcilable conflict of interest.'
- The Public Defender's motions to withdraw failed to specify the actual nature and basis of the conflict, containing only bare assertions without detailed explanation.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This order is a useful reference for both public defenders and trial/appellate courts handling motions to withdraw based on asserted conflicts of interest, clarifying that vague assertions of 'irreconcilable conflict'… — 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.