Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

641 So. 2d 164

Docket No. 92-3442.

Lee v. State

William Leslie LEE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided August 1, 1994.

Rehearing Denied September 7, 1994.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1994-08-01

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently September 2008

6 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“request to dismiss counsel was based upon inadequate communication ... rather than any specific claims of incompetence”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Addison v. State

Relies on 274 So. 2d 256 - Nelson v. State · Seabrook v. State · 637 So. 2d 911 - Government Employees Insurance Co. v. Jenkins

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1994-08-01

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*165 Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, Abel Gomez, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.

¶2Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Giselle Lylen Rivera, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4Appellant, William Leslie Lee, appeals from a final judgment and sentence following a jury verdict finding him guilty of capital sexual battery. Appellant raises three issues on appeal: (1) Whether the trial court erred in admitting testimony that the defendant was the victim's father, (2) whether the trial court erred in failing to hold a hearing on appellant's pro se motion to dismiss counsel, (3) whether the conviction must be reversed because it was based on one count of an information charging three offenses.

¶5As to issue one, we find that the appellant failed to properly preserve this issue for appeal. See Feller v. State, 637 So.2d 911 (Fla. 1994).

¶6As to issue two, we find that the trial court did not err in failing to conduct an inquiry pursuant to Nelson v. State, 274 So.2d 256 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973), where a request to dismiss counsel was based upon inadequate communication between counsel and appellant rather than any specific claims of incompetence. See Kenney v. State, 611 So.2d 575 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).

¶7As to issue three, we find that the appellant waived any error by failing to timely challenge the information. See Fountain v. State, 623 So.2d 572 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993), rev. denied, 629 So.2d 132 (Fla. 1993).

¶8AFFIRMED.

¶9ERVIN, WOLF and KAHN, JJ., concur.

/641/so2d/164 · .json · Public domain