RICKY LEE GRAVES, JR.
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Defendant filed a pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea after sentencing, alleging that his trial counsel misadvised him. The trial court erroneously struck the motion because defendant was represented by counsel. The appellate court reversed, holding that when a defendant files a pro se motion alleging attorney misconduct, an adversarial relationship exists requiring the trial court to hold a hearing with conflict-free counsel before dismissing the motion.
The trial court erred by striking the pro se motion to withdraw the plea without holding a hearing. When a defendant files a pro se motion alleging attorney misadvisement, misrepresentation, or coercion, an adversarial relationship exists and the trial court must hold a limited hearing. If an adversarial relationship is established and the allegations are not conclusively refuted, the court must permit counsel to withdraw or appoint conflict-free counsel.
[1] A trial court errs by striking a defendant's pro se motion to withdraw a plea when the motion alleges attorney misadvice, misrepresentation, or coercion.
[2] When a defendant files a pro se motion to withdraw a plea alleging attorney misadvice, the trial court should not strike the pleading as a nullity.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“When a defendant files a pro se motion to withdraw plea alleging that his attorney misadvised him, misrepresented the terms of the plea, or coerced him into entering a plea, an adversarial relationship exists and the trial court should not strike the pleading as a nullity.”
Establishes the core rule that pro se motions alleging attorney misconduct create an adversarial relationship and cannot be summarily struck.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRicky Lee Graves, Jr. was sentenced after entering a plea. While represented by counsel, he filed a pro se motion to withdraw his plea, claiming his a…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Adversarial Relationship Between Defendant And Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
After sentencing and while represented by counsel, the defendant filed a timely pro se “Motion to Withdraw Open Court Plea” and “Motion for Appointment of Counsel During Motion to Withdraw Open Court Plea.” He claimed, inter alia, that his attorney generally misadvised him, including a failure to advise him of the dangers and consequences of entering an open plea. At a hearing, the court allowed defense counsel to withdraw and appointed the public defender for purposes of the defendant’s appeal. The court struck the defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea on the grounds that he was represented by counsel. Because this was error, the state’s concession of error is well taken.
When a defendant files a pro se motion to withdraw plea alleging that his attorney misadvised him, misrepresented the terms of the plea, or coerced him into entering a plea, an adversarial relationship exists and the trial court should not strike the pleading as a nullity. “Rather, the trial court should hold a limited hearing at which the defendant, defense counsel, and the State are present. If it appears to the trial court that an adversarial relationship between counsel and the defendant has arisen and the defendant’s allegations are not conclusively refuted by the record, the court should either permit counsel to withdraw or discharge counsel and appoint conflict-free counsel to represent the defendant.” Sheppard v. State, 17 So. 3d 275, 286-87 (Fla. 2009). Based on Sheppard, we reverse and remand for the trial court to consider the defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea with the assistance of conflict-free counsel.
Reversed and remanded.
LEVINE, C.J., WARNER and GROSS, JJ., concur.