| [1] | SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA |
| [2] | No. 77,872 |
| [3] | 1991.FL.45632 <http://www.versuslaw.com>; 584
So. 2d 5; 16 Fla. Law W. S 510 |
| [4] | August 15, 1991 |
| [5] | ROY CLIFTON SWAFFORD, PETITIONER, v. HARRY K. SINGLETARY, JR., ETC., RESPONDENT |
| [6] | Original Proceeding - Habeas Corpus. |
| [7] | Larry Helm Spalding, Capital Collateral Representative; Martin J.
McClain, Chief Assistant CCR and Jerrel E. Phillips, Assistant CCR, Office
of the Capital Collateral Representative, Tallahassee, Florida, for
Petitioner. |
| [8] | Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General and Barbara Davis, Assistant
Attorney General, Daytona Beach, Florida, for Respondent. |
| [9] | Shaw, C.j. and Overton, McDonald, Barkett, Grimes, Kogan and Harding,
JJ., concur. |
| [10] | Author: Per Curiam |
| [11] | Roy Swafford, a prisoner on death row, petitions this
Court for writ of habeas corpus,*fn1
alleging that one of his trial attorneys, Howard Pearl, had a conflict of
interest because he was also a special deputy sheriff while he represented
Swafford. Several other prisoners who had been represented
by Pearl have raised this same issue, and we have remanded for evidentiary
hearings on their claim. Wright v. State, no. 74,775 (Fla. May 9, 1991);
Herring v. State, no. 75,209 (Fla. May 2, 1991); Harich v. State, 542 So.2d 980 (Fla. 1989).*fn2
Notwithstanding the fact that this claim should be raised in the trial
court through a motion for post-conviction relief,*fn3
we find that no relief is warranted. Swafford raised this
issue in a post-conviction motion, and the trial court denied it without
an evidentiary hearing. On appeal we affirmed because Pearl's "involvement
in the case was minimal and Swafford could not have been
prejudiced." Swafford v. Dugger, 569 So.2d 1264, 1267 (Fla. 1990). Pearl's minimal participation in
Swafford's representation distinguishes this case from
Wright, Herring, and Harich. Therefore, we find no merit in
Swafford's claim and deny his petition. |
| [12] | It is so ordered. |
|
| |
| Opinion Footnotes | |
|
| |
| [13] | *fn1
We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(9), Fla. Const. |
| [14] | *fn2
This Court affirmed the trial court's holding, after an evidentiary
hearing, that Pearl had not had a conflict of interest when representing
Harich. Harich v. State, 573 So.2d 303 (Fla. 1990),
petition for cert. filed (U.S. Apr. 23, 1991) (no. 90-7789). |
| [15] | *fn3
Resolution of the merits of this issue would require an evidentiary
hearing. Therefore, it is more properly raised in the trial court and is
not cognizable in a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed with this
Court. |