VERMONT SMITH, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
The trial court erred by summarily denying a motion to withdraw a plea without appointing conflict-free counsel, as this constitutes a denial of the right to counsel.
The defendant, an indigent, filed a pro se motion to withdraw his plea. The trial court addressed the merits of the motion and denied it without appoi…
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 Critical Stage Of Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
SALCINES, Judge.
Vermont Smith asserts that the trial court erred when it failed to appoint conflict-free counsel to represent him and summarily denied his motion to withdraw plea filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170®. We agree and reverse.
An indigent defendant has the right to court-appointed counsel to assist in filing a rule 3.170(0 motion. Padgett v. State, 743 So. 2d 70, 73 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); see also Lester v. State, 820 So. 2d 1078, 1078 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (holding “once a defendant indicates his desire to avail himself of the rule 3.170(0 procedure, the trial court must appoint conflict-free counsel to advise and assist the defendant in this regard”).
In the present case, the trial court addressed the merits of Smith’s pro se motion and summarily denied relief. On appeal the State urges this court to hold that it was harmless error for the trial court to have denied Smith’s motion because the plea colloquy demonstrates that Smith understood the consequences of his plea. This argument is not persuasive because the issue on appeal is not whether the motion was meritorious but whether Smith was denied conflict-free counsel at a critical stage of the proceedings. See Williams v. State, 793 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (holding rule 3.170© proceeding is a critical stage in proceedings at which defendant is entitled to counsel). The denial of the right to counsel is not subject to a harmless error analysis. Pad-gett, 743 So. 2d at 74. Accordingly, we reverse the order denying the motion and direct the trial court to appoint conflict-free counsel to advise and assist Smith with his rule 3.170© motion.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
FULMER and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Schriber v. State, 959 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…assist him in preparing his rule 3.170(Z) motion to withdraw his plea. See Mosley v. State, 932 So. 2d 1239 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); Banks v. State, 927 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); Norman v. State, 897 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); Smith v. State, 849 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Meeks v. State, 841 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Wofford v. State, 819 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). The state argues that the trial court did not need to appoint conflict-free counsel [*1257] because the motion was insuffic…
-
Searcy v. State, 971 So. 2d 1008 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…DCA 2006) (providing that once a defendant indicates his desire to avail himself of Rule 3.170(Z), the trial court must appoint conflict-free counsel to advise and assist); Norman v. State, 897 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (same); Smith v. State, 849 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (same); Wofford v. State, 819 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (same); Lester v. State, 820 So. 2d 1078 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (same); Williams v. State, 793 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (same). Here, the defendant indirectly allege…1 / 2
-
Grainger v. State, 906 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…is a critical stage in the proceeding, and an indigent criminal defendant has a right to the appointment of conflict-free counsel to assist in the filing of the motion. See Iaconetti v. State, 869 So. 2d 695, 699 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Smith v. State, 849 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Wofford v. State, 819 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). We have discussed the errors reflected in this record with a view toward providing guidance to prevent their repetition. [*383] However, as we have previously explained, the…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Padgett v. State, 743 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Lester v. State, 820 So. 2d 1078 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- Williams v. State, 793 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)