House v. State

We affirm the judgment and sentence. With respect to the assertion that the trial court should have conducted a Nelson hearing we note that the appellant only expressed a general dissatisfaction with appointed counsel and that a Nelson inquiry was unnecessary. See, e.g., Clayton v. State, 953 So.2d 758 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 966 So.2d 965 (Fla.2007).

AFFIRMED.

ORFINGER, C.J., MONACO and JACOBUS, JJ., concur.