MILES LEE BROWN, 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.
Miles Brown appeals the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming he was denied conflict-free counsel at the hearing on that motion. The court reversed, holding that when a defendant seeks to withdraw a plea on grounds that it was coerced by counsel and has raised a conflict of interest in the trial court, the defendant is entitled to conflict-free counsel at the withdrawal hearing.
The court held that a motion to withdraw a plea is a critical stage in a criminal proceeding at which a defendant is entitled to effective assistance of counsel. When a defendant seeks to withdraw a plea on the ground that it was coerced by his attorney and has raised a conflict of interest in the trial court, the trial court must appoint conflict-free counsel or permit the defendant to secure such counsel before conducting an evidentiary hearing on the motion to withdraw the plea.
[1] A motion to withdraw a plea pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(i) is a critical stage in direct criminal proceedings at which a defendant is entitled to…
[2] Where a defendant alleges that his plea was coerced by his attorney, the trial court must appoint conflict-free counsel or allow the defendant to secure such counsel befo…
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“A motion to withdraw a plea pursuant to rule 3.170(Z) is a "critical stage in the direct criminal proceeding" at which the defendant is entitled to effective assistance of counsel.”
Establishes that withdrawal of plea hearings are critical stages where the Sixth Amendment right to counsel applies
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBrown filed a pro se motion to withdraw his plea within thirty days of sentencing on September 12, 2001. His defense counsel filed a supporting motion…
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 Coerced Guilty Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
EDWARD F. THREADGILL, Senior Judge.
Miles Brown appeals from the trial court’s denial of his motion to withdraw plea after sentencing.
We reverse and remand for a new hearing with conflict-free counsel. On September 12, 2001, Brown filed a pro se motion to withdraw plea within thirty days of sentencing pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(i). On the next day, defense counsel filed a motion to withdraw plea, stating that Brown would support the motion by his attached letter and orally in court.
On September 18, 2001, Brown filed a motion to dismiss his attorney, alleging a conflict of interest. A hearing was held on the motion to withdraw plea on September 20, 2001. Defense counsel told the court that Brown had filed the motion to withdraw his plea and that Brown could explain the motion and “a motion to dismiss me.” The trial court clearly considered Brown unrepresented at the hearing.
The trial court then asked Brown to tell him why he wanted his plea set aside. Brown answered, “I had no idea what was going on. I didn’t know that I was going to be pleading out to actually doing the time.” The trial court proceeded to quote from the transcript of the plea colloquy and then denied the motion to withdraw plea.
On appeal, Brown contends that he was entitled to conflict-free counsel at the hearing on his motion to withdraw his plea. A motion to withdraw a plea pursuant to rule 3.170(Z) is a “critical stage in the direct criminal proceeding” at which the defendant is entitled to effective assistance of counsel. Padgett v. State, 743 So. 2d 70, 72-73 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); see Harris v. State, 818 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Among the permissible grounds for a motion to withdraw a plea is an involuntary plea. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.170(1); Fla. R.App. P. 9.140(b)(2)(A)(ii)(c); see also Harris, 818 So. 2d at 568 n.
1. Here, Brown’s motion alleged that he did not fully understand the nature and extent of his plea, that he was threatened or coerced into pleading by his trial attorney, and that his trial attorney admitted to “knowing/having a degree of affiliation” with the victim. He also sought to dismiss his attorney for a conflict of interest, alleging the affiliation with the victim.
We note that Brown’s allegations are more detailed than the insufficient allegation in Harris that the defendant “did not fully understand the sentence.” Harris, 818 So. 2d at 568.
The State relies upon Harris in stating that Brown cannot raise the right to conflict-free counsel for the first time on appeal. In Harris, however, it appears that Harris did not express any dissatisfaction with his attorney in the trial court. Here, Brown sought to dismiss his attorney in the trial court based on an alleged conflict of interest and alleged that his attorney coerced him into entering his plea. “Where a defendant seeks to withdraw his plea on the ground that it was coerced by his attorney, the trial court must either appoint conflict-free counsel or permit the defendant the opportunity to secure the same and, then, conduct an evidentiary hearing on the motion to withdraw plea.” Lingenfelser v. State, 734 So. 2d 472, 472-73 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).
Therefore, we reverse the denial of Brown’s motion to withdraw plea and remand for a hearing in which Brown is afforded conflict-free counsel.
Reversed and remanded.
CASANUEVA and SALCINES, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Garcia v. State, 846 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…entry of his plea within thirty days after sentencing on the grounds stated in Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(b)(2)(A). One of the permissible grounds is that the plea was involuntary. Fla. R.App. P. 9.140(b)(2)(A)(ii)(c); Brown v. State, 835 So. 2d 402 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Garcia’s allegation that he was misled by his court-appointed attorney into entering the plea can be construed as a challenge to the voluntariness of the plea. See Ricardo v. State, 647 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (holding that…
-
Krautheim v. State, 38 So. 3d 802 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…3); see also Daniel v. State, 865 So. 2d 661, 661 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (“[A] motion to withdraw a plea pursuant to rule 3.170(Z) is a ‘critical stage’ in which the defendant is entitled to effective assistance of counsel ....” (quoting Brown v. State, 835 So. 2d 402, 403 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003))); Hampton v. State, 848 So. 2d 405, 405 (Fla. [*805] 2d DCA 2008) (“A motion to withdraw plea is a critical stage of a criminal proceeding at which an indigent defendant is entitled to court-appointed counsel.”). Thus the ci…
-
Daniel v. State, 865 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…08 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (citing State v. Leroux, 689 So. 2d 235, 237 (Fla.1996)). Since a motion to withdraw a plea pursuant to rule 3.170(i) is a “critical stage” in which the defendant is entitled to effective assistance of counsel, Brown v. State, 835 So. 2d 402, 403 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), we remand with directions that the trial court appoint conflict-free counsel for the evidentiary hearing. Reversed and remanded. SALCINES and WALLACE, JJ, Concur.…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Padgett v. State, 743 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Harris v. State, 818 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Lingenfelser v. State, 734 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)