RICHIE KITTLES
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.
The appellate court affirmed a defendant's plea agreement, ruling that he failed to properly preserve his claim that his waiver of counsel was inadequate. The court clarified that the exception for juveniles in a prior case does not apply to adults, and a motion to withdraw the plea is required to raise such issues on appeal.
No, the plea agreement was not rendered involuntary on appeal because Kittles failed to file a motion to withdraw his plea. The exception for juveniles in State v. T.G. does not apply to adult defendants.
[1] A plea agreement entered into by a pro se defendant who improperly waived their right to counsel is involuntary as a matter of law.
[2] To challenge the voluntariness of a plea agreement on appeal, a defendant must first file a motion to withdraw the plea.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“A plea agreement entered into by a pro se defendant who improperly waived their right to counsel is involuntary as a matter of law.”
This quote states the general principle regarding involuntary pleas due to improper counsel waiver.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRichie Kittles, appearing pro se, entered a plea agreement for drug offenses. He later appealed, arguing his plea was involuntary due to an inadequate…
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 Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
FORST, J.
Appellant Richie Kittles (“Defendant”) challenges his plea agreement relating to charges of trafficking in fentanyl, possession of cocaine, and possession of cannabis with intent to sell. Defendant appeared pro se in the trial court, and argues on appeal, through counsel, that his plea was involuntary as a matter of law because his waiver of counsel in the trial court was inadequate.
A plea agreement entered into by a pro se defendant who improperly waived their right to counsel is involuntary as a matter of law. State v. T.G., 800 So. 2d 204, 213 (Fla. 2001). However, to challenge the voluntariness of a plea agreement on appeal, the defendant is required to have first filed a motion to withdraw plea. State v. Dortch, 317 So. 3d 1074, 1084 (Fla. 2021); Fla. R. App. P. 9.140(b)(2)(A)(ii)c. Here, Defendant did not file a motion to withdraw plea prior to filing the instant appeal and, per Dortch, an argument of fundamental error is insufficient to exempt Defendant from the requirement of a timely filed pre-appeal motion to withdraw plea. Dortch, 317 So. 3d at 1081–82.
We reject Defendant’s reliance on T.G., which exempts juveniles from the requirement of filing a motion to withdraw plea. The Florida Supreme Court made clear in Dortch that T.G. should not be used for “creating ad hoc exceptions” to rule 9.140(b)(2)(A)(ii)c. Dortch, 317 So. 3d at 1083 (“[N]o matter how emphatically a court stresses that its reasoning is good-for-one-case-only, every exception begets demands for more.”). T.G. is a “narrowly drawn and extremely limited exception” that applies only to juveniles because of the “unique concern for juveniles who enter pleas without the benefit of counsel.” T.G., 800 So. 2d at 213. Defendant is not a juvenile so, as in Dortch, T.G. “is easily distinguishable.” Dortch, 317 So. 3d at 1083.
We therefore affirm Defendant’s sentence but do so without prejudice to Defendant raising his claims in a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion. See Melendez v. State, 339 So. 3d 498, 501 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022).
Affirmed.
DAMOORGIAN and GERBER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. T.G., 800 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 2001)
- Javaughn Skinkle v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2022)
- Melendez v. State, 339 So. 3d 498 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022)