THOMAS L. ZEISZLER, 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 Zeiszler appealed the trial court's denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea before sentencing. The court held that Zeiszler was entitled to appointment of conflict-free counsel to assist him on his motion to withdraw, as the motion alleged coercion and misrepresentation by his trial counsel, creating an apparent conflict of interest.
The trial court erred in denying the motion to withdraw the plea without first appointing conflict-free counsel. When a defendant files a motion to withdraw a plea alleging misrepresentation, coercion, or duress by defense counsel, or when a conflict of interest arises between the defendant and counsel at the motion hearing, the trial court must appoint or allow retention of independent counsel solely for the purpose of representing the defendant on the motion to withdraw.
[1] A trial court must appoint conflict-free counsel to represent a defendant on a motion to withdraw a plea when the motion alleges coercion or duress by defense counsel.
[2] A conflict of interest arises between a defendant and defense counsel when the defendant alleges that counsel coerced the defendant into entering a plea.
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“The preferred course to follow once a defendant files a motion to withdraw plea alleging misrepresentation, coercion or duress by defense counsel, or once a conflict of interest arises between the defendant and defense counsel at the motion hearing is for the trial court to appoint or allow the defendant to retain independent counsel solely for the purpose of representation on the motion to withdraw the plea.”
Establishes the mandatory procedure when conflict of interest exists in plea withdrawal motions
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceZeiszler entered a guilty plea with counsel's assistance. Before sentencing, he filed a motion to withdraw the plea, alleging he was under emotional 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 Conflict-Free Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his plea before sentencing, and argues that he was entitled to the appointment of conflict-free counsel to assist him in pursuing his motion. We agree.
After his plea was entered, but before sentencing, appellant, with the assistance of counsel, filed a motion to withdraw his plea. In the motion, he alleged that at the time he entered his plea, he was under a great deal of emotional and mental distress and believed he did not have a viable alternative. At hearing on the motion, appellant asserted that he had been coerced by defense counsel to enter the plea. Among other things, he said that defense counsel had insisted he take the plea, and that defense counsel had suggested he might withdraw from the case if appellant did not take the plea.
We are unable to distinguish this case from Roberts v. State, 670 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), and Holifield v. State, 717 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), on which appellant relies, or Karg v. State, 706 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). As in Holifield, this was not a case in which the motion to withdraw was based solely on alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. In Holifield, the court said:
The preferred course to follow once a defendant files a motion to withdraw plea alleging misrepresentation, coercion or duress by defense counsel, or once a conflict of interest arises between the defendant and defense counsel at the motion hearing is for the trial court to appoint or allow the defendant to retain independent counsel solely for the purpose of representation on the motion to withdraw the plea.
717 So. 2d at 69 (e.s.).
In Karg, appellant sought to withdraw his plea, alleging defense counsel had coerced him to accept a plea. This court stated: “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.” 706 So. 2d at 125.
The denial of appellant’s motion to withdraw his plea is set aside and the matter is remanded with directions to appoint conflict-free counsel to represent appellant in further proceedings concerning the motion.
JOANOS, ALLEN and KAHN, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. State, 845 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…he defendant and his counsel, the preferred course to follow is for the “trial court to appoint or allow the defendant to retain independent counsel solely for the purpose of representation on the motion to withdraw the plea.” See Zeiszler v. State, 765 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Holifield v. State, 717 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), rev. denied, 729 So. 2d 394 (Fla.1999). That is to say, when a conflict between a defendant and his counsel appears in the record, the trial court is obligated to appoint co…
-
Thedrice Lewis v. State, 812 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…rt appoint conflict-free counsel to represent Lewis in further proceedings on the motion to withdraw the plea. See James v. State, 773 So. 2d 659, 659 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Rodgers v. State, 765 So. 2d 195, 196 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Zeiszler 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 DC…
-
James v. State, 773 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…d a conflict of interest between Ms. James and her attorney. Accordingly, we reverse and remand with directions to appoint conflict-free counsel to represent Ms. James in further proceedings on the motion to withdraw her plea. See Zeiszler v. State, 765 So. 2d 128, 129 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Padgett v. State, 743 So. 2d 70, 74 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Holifield v. State, 717 So. 2d 69, 69 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). We express no view on the merits of the motion to withdraw the plea. MINER, ALLEN, and BENTON, JJ., concu…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Roberts v. State, 670 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Wadie Michael Holifield v. State, 717 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- Karg v. State, 706 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)