IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. SC00-1351
CHARLES FINNEY,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
ON APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,
IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, STATE OF FLORIDA
MOTION FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO REPLY TO THE RESPONSES ORDERED
BY THIS COURT, AND FOR ORAL ARGUMENTS ON THE ISSUE OF
REMOVAL OF COUNSEL.
CHARLES FINNEY DC# 516349
UNION CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
PO BOX 221
RAIFORD, FLORIDA 32083
Appellant, Charles Finney, respectfully begins this Motion for the Opportunity to Reply by requesting that the Court allow him additional time in which to research and present his issues to the Court. This request comes due to the fact that all out-going mail from Union Correctional Institution must be processed, which adds, on average, an additional two to four days to all mail being sent from Appellant. Also, requests to the Institution’s mail room for Certified Mail certificates and other specialized postage items can take almost a week to be delivered. This is demonstrated by Appellant’s August 9th request for Certified Mail Service, which was not delivered and processed until August 15th. This delay of almost one week exemplifies the delays frequently incurred by Appellant, and because of this, more time is respectfully requested in which to review the pleadings and to gain assistance. Without additional time, Appellant finds time deadlines almost impossible to meet.
Appellant also most humbly requests that oral arguments be held on the issue of removal of counsel from CCRC-Middle, and that, as stated in the original Motion to Dismiss Post Conviction Counsel, replacement counsel be appointed from either CCRC-North or CCRC-South where Appellant has no conflicts of interest.
Mr. Finney alleged in his initial Motion to Dismiss Post Conviction Counsel that irreconcilable conflicts of interest exist between himself and Bill Jennings and the legal office of CCRC-Middle District. It would be one thing if Mr. Jennings were acting merely as an administrator and not interfering in the actual representation that their clients receive. But that is not the case. Upon his arrival, Mr. Jennings fired Mr. Hobson, the attorney who had been representing me in my appeal to this Court, and in whom I had some confidence. Attorneys who remain, or who have been newly hired in the CCRC-Middle office, are forced to abandon their own independent judgment to the politician who provides their pay. Those who will not give up their independent judgements are terminated. Mr. Jennings states that he has now filled the CCRC-Middle office with "the best people" he could find, yet he fired attorneys who were voted the CCRC-Middle’s "best" for the year 2000, and instead staffed the office with campaign contributors who backed his unsuccessful campaign for Hillsborough County’s State Attorney. Mr. Jennings also fired experienced investigators in order to hire people such as Mark Hough, another financial backer who was previously fired from his job at the Hillsborough sheriff’s office after being accused of sexual relations with a prostitute that he threatened with arrest. If this is Mr. Jennings’ idea of "a first-rate staff," I think the level of "professionalism" touted by Mr. Jennings speaks for itself. During his campaign last year for Hillsborough County’s State Attorney, Jennings was forced to defend himself against resurfaced allegations of sexual harassment made by a former co-worker, so he has set a very low standard for his office staff to follow.
It is worth noting that a former CCRC leader is not permitted to run for public office for two years after his departure from the office of CCRC, however, no such restrictions apply to an applicant applying for the position of CCRC head. Mr. Jennings ran for the Hillsborough County State Attorney less than a year ago, and ran on a "get tough on crime" platform which supported the death penalty. He sought to be head of the office prosecuting me and seeking to have me executed. When the voters rejected him for that job, he applied and was appointed to represent me. I am supposed to have trust in him? Not when his first act is to fire the attorney with whom I have been working closely regarding my pending appeal.
Look at the State’s motion to preclude my former attorney from raising new issues before this Court. Ms. Dittmar knew that Mr. Hobson had discovered issues that had not been previously developed on my behalf, and that he had asked the Court for permission to amend his Brief with this pertinent information. Ms. Dittmar sought to silence Mr. Hobson on these issues, however, Mr. Jennings did Ms. Dittmar’s job for her. He fired Mr. Hobson and then directed my so-called "new attorney" to respond to Ms. Dittmar’s motion by conceding that my issues would not be raised.
The conflict of interest I have with the CCRC-Middle can further be seen in the actions of Mr. John Moser, Mr. Jennings’ advisor (or lobbyist, consultant, or whatever label they choose to use to circumvent state law). Mr. Moser has agreed to address the prosecutor’s death penalty conference in Tampa in October, and will provide attorney-client privileged information regarding the defense prospective in order to assist the prosecutors in my case to carry out my execution. Mr. Moser also intends to be Senator Locke Burt’s campaign manager in his bid to be the next Attorney General for the State of Florida. He is being paid by CCRC-Middle, while at the same time, he begins to work on behalf of Senator Burt’s campaign, and in doing so, is sacrificing me and other CCRC clients for his personal gain.
The eager propensity of Mr. Jennings and Mr. Moser to side with and assist the prosecution on several fronts, while pretending to champion the appeals process for their clients, demonstrates further their plan to defeat Mr. Thomas’ voucher plan and to maintain their well paid positions. Mr. Moser is not only advising Mr. Jennings on what he needs to do to defeat the proposed voucher program, which is to move clients through to execution in a fast and cost affective manner, but he now chooses to further assist the prosecution by speaking at their death penalty conference.
Mr. Jennings has assembled the least qualified attorneys of the three CCRC offices to assist him in the speedy execution of his clients, of which I am one. For this reason, and for the reasons mentioned both above and in the original Motion to Dismiss Post Conviction Counsel of CCRC-Middle, I again beseech this Court to allow oral arguments on the issue of removal of counsel, and for the appointment of either the CCRC-North or CCRC-South office to represent Appellant.
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this motion has been furnished by United States Mail to all counsel of record on September 1, 2001.
Copies furnished to:
The Honorable Chet A. Tharpe
Circuit Court Judge
Sharon Vollrath
Assistant State Attorney Hillsborough County Courthouse Office of the State Attorney
801 East Kennedy Blvd. Hillsborough Co Courthouse Annex Tampa, Florida 33602 800 East Kennedy Blvd.
Tampa, Florida 33602
Carol M. Dittmar
Assistant Attorney General
Capital Collateral Regional Counsel
Westwood Building, Seventh Floor Middle Region
2002 North Lois Avenue 3801 Corporex Park Drive
Tampa, Florida 33607 Suite 210f
Tampa, Florida 33619
Respectfully Submitted,
_____________________________
CHARLES FINNEY DC# 516349
UNION CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
PO BOX 221
RAIFORD, FLORIDA 32083
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF BRADFORD