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.
Ricky Lee Graves, Jr. filed a pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea while represented by counsel, alleging his attorney misadvised him about the consequences of an open plea. The trial court struck the motion solely because he was represented by counsel, which the appellate court found to be error. The court reversed and remanded for reconsideration with conflict-free counsel.
When a defendant files a pro se motion to withdraw a plea alleging attorney misadvisement, misrepresentation of plea terms, or coercion, an adversarial relationship exists and the trial court must hold a limited hearing with all parties present. If an adversarial relationship appears to exist and the defendant's allegations are not conclusively refuted by the record, the court must either permit counsel to withdraw or appoint conflict-free counsel, rather than striking the motion as a nullity.
[1] A trial court errs by striking a defendant's pro se motion to withdraw a plea when the motion alleges attorney misadvice or coercion, as this creates an adversarial relat…
[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 but rather hold a limit…
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 fundamental principle that adversarial relationships between defendant and counsel must be recognized in plea withdrawal contexts
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAfter sentencing, the defendant filed a pro se motion to withdraw his open court plea while still represented by counsel. He alleged that his attorney…
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.