Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantattorneynegligencestatuteappealhearingtrialmotionmalpracticestatute of limitationspublic defenderlegal malpracticelife imprisonment

defendantattorneystatuteappealhearingtrialmalpracticestatute of limitationspublic defenderlegal malpracticedefense attorneycriminal procedurelife imprisonment

Related Cases

Schreiber v. Rowe, 814 So.2d 396, 27 Fla. L. Weekly S248

Facts

Rowe was convicted of capital sexual battery in 1984 and sentenced to life imprisonment. After his conviction was affirmed, he sought post-conviction relief, which was initially denied. However, the court later granted him an evidentiary hearing, leading to a new trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Rowe subsequently filed a legal malpractice suit against his public defenders, alleging negligence in their representation during his trial and appeal.

On December 14, 1984, Rowe was convicted of several counts of capital sexual battery and was sentenced to four terms of life imprisonment. This court affirmed the conviction on April 11, 1988. Rowe timely moved for post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, which the trial court denied without an evidentiary hearing.

Issue

Whether the statute of limitations for a legal malpractice claim against public defenders begins to run only after a client has obtained final appellate or postconviction relief, and whether public defenders are entitled to judicial immunity.

The district court certified conflict with Martin regarding whether criminal defendants are required to obtain postconviction relief or to set aside their convictions on appeal before pursuing an action for legal malpractice against their defense attorneys.

Rule

The statute of limitations for legal malpractice claims does not commence until the criminal defendant has obtained final appellate or postconviction relief, and public defenders are not entitled to judicial immunity.

We further held that the statute of limitations in a malpractice action does not commence until the criminal defendant has obtained final appellate or postconviction relief.

Analysis

The court analyzed the timeline of Rowe's postconviction relief and determined that the statute of limitations for his malpractice claim began when the trial court granted his motion for postconviction relief. The court also examined the role of public defenders and concluded that they serve as advocates for their clients, similar to private attorneys, and thus should not be granted the same judicial immunity as state attorneys.

The majority opinion concludes that public defenders are not entitled to quasi-judicial immunity because they are advocates who owe a duty only to their clients, and their role is 'more analogous to the role of private attorneys than to that of state attorneys.'

Conclusion

The Supreme Court approved the District Court's decision, affirming that the statute of limitations for legal malpractice claims begins after obtaining postconviction relief and that public defenders do not enjoy judicial immunity.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated in this opinion, we approve the result of the district court's decision below.

Who won?

Rowe prevailed in the case because the court ruled in his favor regarding the statute of limitations and the issue of judicial immunity for public defenders.

Rowe, 725 So.2d at 1251.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Adell v. Sommers, Schwartz, Silver and Schwartz, P.C., 170 Mich.App. 196, 428 N.W.2d 26

Zabin v. Picciotto, 73 Mass.App.Ct. 141, 896 N.E.2d 937

Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 106 S.Ct. 366, 88 L.Ed.2d 203, 54 USLW 4006

Stern v. County Court In and For County of Grand, 773 P.2d 1074, 58 USLW 2042, 16 A.L.R.5th 882

Levine v. Levine, 734 So.2d 1191, 24 Fla. L. Weekly D1568