DONALD QUINTIN BRYE, 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.
Appellant Brye appeals the denial of his motion to withdraw no contest pleas to drug charges. The court held that the trial court reversibly erred by ruling on the motion to withdraw pleas before permitting his conflicted counsel to withdraw and appointing new counsel, creating an improper conflict of interest.
It was reversible error for the trial court to consider and rule on the motion to withdraw pleas before permitting the conflicted lawyer to withdraw and appointing new, conflict-free counsel. The court reversed the denial of the motion to withdraw pleas and remanded for appointment of conflict-free counsel.
[1] A trial court commits reversible error when it rules on a defendant's motion to withdraw pleas before permitting the defendant's lawyer to withdraw and appointing conflic…
[2] A conflict of interest arises when a defendant alleges that their lawyer lied to induce them to enter pleas and that the lawyer failed to discuss viable defenses.
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“it was reversible error to consider and rule on appellant's motion to withdraw his pleas before permitting his lawyer to withdraw, and appointing conflict-free counsel to represent him”
Establishes the core holding that the trial court must address counsel's motion to withdraw before ruling on the plea withdrawal motion when a conflict exists.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant entered no contest pleas to two counts of possession of cocaine and one count of sale of cocaine. Before sentencing, his lawyer filed both a…
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 Motion To Withdraw As Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
WEBSTER, Judge.
In this direct criminal appeal, appellant seeks review of an order denying his motion to withdraw his pleas. He complains that the trial court committed reversible error when it denied that motion without first granting his lawyer’s motion to withdraw as counsel, and then appointing conflict-free counsel to represent him. We agree and, accordingly, reverse.
Following the entry by appellant of no contest pleas to two counts of possession of cocaine and one count of sale of cocaine, and before sentencing, appellant’s lawyer filed a motion to withdraw the pleas and a motion to withdraw as counsel. The former motion alleged that the lawyer had lied to appellant to induce him to enter pleas; that the lawyer had failed to discuss possible defenses with appellant; and that, in fact, appellant had viable defenses (which were specified) to the charges. The latter motion sought leave to withdraw as counsel because the allegations made by appellant in the motion to withdraw his pleas created a conflict of interest. Citing Roberts v. State, 670 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), the lawyer requested that new counsel be appointed to represent appellant regarding his motion to withdraw his pleas. Instead of first ruling on the lawyer’s motion to withdraw as counsel, the trial court addressed appellant’s motion to withdraw his pleas. Although the lawyer still represented appellant, he was placed in the position by the trial court of having to respond to the allegations made by appellant in his motion. After listening to the lawyer and appellant, who recounted vastly different versions of what had transpired before appellant had entered his pleas, the trial court denied appellant’s motion to withdraw his pleas.
The salient facts of this ease are indistinguishable from those in Roberts. Accordingly, as in Roberts, we hold that it was reversible error to consider and rule on appellant’s motion to withdraw his pleas before permitting his lawyer to withdraw, and appointing conflict-free counsel to represent him. Accord Lopez v. State, 688 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Hope v. State, 682 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). We reverse the denial of appellant’s motion to withdraw his pleas, and remand with directions that the trial court appoint conflict-free counsel to represent appellant in further proceedings.
REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.
MINER and ALLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wadie Michael Holifield v. State, 717 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…torney. Defense counsel was thereby placed in the position of having to respond to allegations against her. This is precisely the type of adversarial situation Roberts v. State, 670 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), addresses. See also Brye v. State, 702 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Lopez v. State, 688 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Hope v. State, 682 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). This is not a motion based solely on allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel, as in Cunningham v. State, 677 So. 2d…
-
Karg v. State, 706 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…We disagree with appellee. Because a conflict between appellant and his trial counsel appears in the record, the trial court must appoint conflict-free counsel to represent appellant with regard to his motion to withdraw his plea. See Brye v. State, 702 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Lopez v. State, 688 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Hope v. State, 682 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). The denial of appellant’s motion to withdraw plea is REVERSED and REMANDED with directions to appoint conflict-free counse…
-
Thedrice Lewis v. State, 812 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…eiszler v. State, 765 So. 2d 128, 129 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); George v. State, 753 So. 2d 678, 678 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Holifield v. State, 717 So. 2d 69, 69 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Karg v. State, 706 So. 2d 124, 124-25 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Brye v. State, 702 So. 2d 256, 257 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). KAHN, PADOVANO and POLSTON, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Roberts v. State, 670 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Hope v. State, 682 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Lopez v. State, 688 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)