JOHNNIE MEEKS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Critical Stage Of Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
NORTHCUTT, Judge.
Johnnie Meeks contends, and the State concedes, that the trial court should not have heard and denied his motion to withdraw his plea pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(i) without appointing counsel to represent him in the matter. We agree.
A criminal defendant facing incarceration has a right to counsel at every critical stage of the proceedings against him. Wofford v. State, 819 So. 2d 891, 892 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Bible v. State, 779 So. 2d 517, 517 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Padgett v. State, 743 So. 2d 70, 72 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). A motion to withdraw plea pursuant to rule 3.170(£) is such a critical stage of the criminal proceedings. Bible, 779 So. 2d 517.
Reversed and remanded with directions to appoint counsel to represent Meeks and to hold a new hearing on his motion to withdraw his plea.
WHATLEY and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Schriber v. State, 959 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…withdraw his plea. See Mosley v. State, 932 So. 2d 1239 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); Banks v. State, 927 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); Norman v. State, 897 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); Smith v. State, 849 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Meeks v. State, 841 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Wofford v. State, 819 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). The state argues that the trial court did not need to appoint conflict-free counsel [*1257] because the motion was insufficient or conclusively refuted by the record. For sup…
-
Elliott v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff Ric Bradshaw, 59 So. 3d 1182 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…(recognizing that section 61.14(5)(a) controls the burden of proof in this type of case). A trial court’s factual finding regarding ability to pay will be sustained if supported by competent substantial evidence. See, e.g., Cleveland v. Cleveland, 841 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (holding that competent substantial evidence did not support the trial court’s conclusory finding that husband had the present ability to pay and noting that the presumption of section 61.14(5)(a), Florida Statutes, is rebuttable…
-
Martyak v. Martyak, 873 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…the first step is not a substitute for the separate, affirmative finding of ability to pay required for incarceration.” Pompey v. Cochran, 685 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (internal quotations omitted). Martyak points to Cleveland v. Cleveland, 841 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Cleveland relied on Vazquez v. Vazquez, 827 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), where this court reversed a contempt order that failed to meet the requirements of the Florida Family Rules of Procedure. In Vazquez we held: the order…
Previewing 3 of 12 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)
- Wofford v. State, 819 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- Bible v. State, 779 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)