QUEEN ELIZABETH COLLINS, 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 denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea should be reversed and remanded if the trial court fails to hold a hearing when the defendant alleges ineffective assistance of counsel and the allegations are not conclusively refuted by the record.
The defendant moved to withdraw her guilty plea, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and that counsel misrepresented her right to withdraw the …
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
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
In Collins v. State, 26 So.3d 1287 (Fla.2009), the Supreme Court of Florida quashed this court’s decision in Collins v. State, 12 So.3d 227 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009), and directed this court on remand to reconsider the matter in light of the supreme court’s decision in Sheppard v. State, 17 So.3d 275 (Fla.2009). This court had relied upon its opinion in Sheppard v. State, 988 So.2d 74 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008), quashed, 17 So.3d 275 (Fla.2009), when it affirmed Collins’ judgment and sentence and the denial of her pro se motion to withdraw plea which was made pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(£).
In her pro se motion Collins argued that she had not been properly represented. Collins also asserted that counsel had told her she could change her mind up until the very last minute and that she was exercising her right to do so. The court denied the motion without exploring Collins’ claims that she had been misrepresented. However, pursuant to the supreme court’s opinion in Sheppard, the court should not have denied Collins’ motion in this manner. See Sheppard, 17 So.3d at 286. In this situation, the supreme court explained that the trial court should proceed as follows:
[T]he 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 defen*252dant’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.
Id. at 287 (footnote omitted).
Therefore, we affirm the judgment and sentence, but we reverse the denial of the motion to withdraw plea and remand for the trial court to follow the procedures in the supreme court’s Sheppard opinion.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
DAVIS, J., and FULMER, CAROLYN K, Senior Judge, Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Davis v. State, 126 So. 3d 1257 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…ly that counsel and appellant’s positions had become adverse); Carter v. State, 22 So. 3d 793, 795 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (recognizing that a general allegation of a conflict with counsel is insufficient to warrant a hearing). But see Collins v. State, 68 So. 3d 251, 251 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (holding that where appellant alleged she had not been properly represented and that counsel told her she could change her mind about plea until the very last minute, trial court should have conducted Sheppard hearing). We n…
Authorities Cited
- Sheppard v. State, 17 So. 3d 275 (Fla. 2009)
- Sheppard v. State, 988 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)
- Queen Elizabeth Collins v. State, 26 So. 3d 1287 (Fla. 2009)