SCHOCK
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.
Nicholas Schock appeals his convictions following a no contest plea to felony battery, disorderly conduct, and exposure of sexual organs. Although the State conceded that the trial court violated Schock's due process rights by failing to appoint conflict-free counsel during a critical stage motion to withdraw his plea, the court affirmed because Schock failed to raise this issue in his appellate briefs.
Although the trial court violated Schock's due process rights by failing to offer conflict-free counsel at the critical stage of a motion to withdraw plea, the issue is deemed waived or abandoned because Schock failed to raise it in his initial or amended initial briefs, even after being placed on notice by the State's answer brief.
“a motion to withdraw plea is a critical stage in the proceedings”
Establishes that the trial court's failure to offer conflict-free counsel at this stage violates due process
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSchock entered a no contest plea to felony battery, disorderly conduct, and exposure of sexual organs. He subsequently filed a motion to withdraw his …
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 Waiver Of Appellate Issues cases and more on FLexlaw
VILLANTI, Judge. Nicholas Arnold Schock appeals his judgment and sentences following a no contest plea to felony battery, disorderly conduct, and exposure of sexual organs. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 4(b)(1), Fla. Const.
We affirm the judgment and sentences and write only to explain why we disagree with the State's concession of error. The State concedes that the trial court violated Schock's due process rights by failing to offer to appoint conflict-free counsel after he filed a motion to withdraw plea pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(l) because a motion to withdraw plea is a critical stage in the proceedings. See Smith v. State, 849 So. 2d 485, 485–86 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).
However, Schock did not raise this argument in his initial brief. Nor did he raise it in his amended initial brief after being put on notice of the issue in the State's answer brief. See Rosier v. State, 276 So. 3d 403, 407 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019) (citing M.S. v. Dep't of Child. & Fams., 210 So. 3d 147, 152 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)). Because Schock did not address this issue in his briefs, even after having been placed on notice of it, the issue is deemed waived or abandoned. See Menchillo v. State, 350 So. 3d 136, 139 n.1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022).
Affirmed. KHOUZAM and LABRIT, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Vermont Smith v. State, 849 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- In the Interest of J.W. v. Dep't of Child. & Families & Guardian Ad Litem Program, 210 So. 3d 147 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)
- Schock v. State, 350 So. 3d 136 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024)