DONALD HARVEY SMITH, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed denial of motion to withdraw plea because trial court failed to appoint conflict-free counsel when a conflict of interest arose between defendant and his trial counsel at the hearing.
When a conflict of interest arises between a defendant and defense counsel during a motion to withdraw plea hearing, the trial court must appoint or allow the defendant to retain independent counsel for representation on that motion.
[1] When a conflict of interest arises between a defendant and defense counsel during a motion to withdraw plea hearing, the trial court must appoint or allow retention of in…
Previewing 1 of 1 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 plea.”
Court stating the proper procedure when conflicts arise in withdrawal of plea motions.
Donald Smith filed a motion to withdraw his plea, alleging misrepresentation, coercion, or duress by his defense counsel. During the hearing on the mo…
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 Independent Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
DAVIS, Judge.
Donald Smith challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion to withdraw plea. Although an apparent conflict developed between Smith and his trial counsel at the hearing on the motion, the trial court failed to offer Smith the assistance of a separate attorney. We reverse.
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 plea.
Holifield v. State, 717 So. 2d 69, 69 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (emphasis added).
Once the conflict became apparent, Smith was without representation. See Padgett v. State, 743 So. 2d 70, 73 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (“[A]s the hearing unfolded, Padgett was for all intents and purposes unrepresented. Once it became clear at the hearing that appellant and his counsel had indeed taken adversarial positions ... appellant was entitled to the appointment of conflict-free counsel”).
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new evidentiary hearing with instructions for the trial court to appoint conflict-free counsel.
Reversed and remanded.
NORTHCUTT, J., and THREADGILL, EDWARD F., Senior Judge, Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gunn v. State, 841 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…conflict becomes apparent between the defendant and defense counsel during a hearing on the defendant’s motion to withdraw plea, the defendant is without representation and is entitled to the appointment of conflict-free counsel. See Smith v. State, 835 So. 2d 1259 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); see also Padgett v. State, 743 So. 2d 70, 73 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Accordingly, we reverse the judgment and sentences and remand with instructions that the trial court appoint conflict-free counsel for the purpose of an eviden-ti…
-
Carmona v. State, 873 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…relationship to offer conflict counsel. Such was clearly not the case here. AFFIRMED. GRIFFIN, J., concurs. SHARP, W., J., dissents with opinion. . Appellant also relies upon four other cases, all of which are distinguishable. In Smith v. State, 835 So. 2d 1259 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) and Karg v. State, 706 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), the conflicts between attorney and client were patent. In the other two cases, the court simply treated the defendants as appearing pro se. Brown v. State, 835 So. 2d 402 (Fla…
Authorities Cited
- Padgett v. State, 743 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Wadie Michael Holifield v. State, 717 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)