CARLOS M. GARCIA, 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.
Carlos Garcia appealed the denial of his motion to withdraw a guilty plea, arguing the trial court erred by conducting an evidentiary hearing without his presence and without appointing conflict-free counsel. The court reversed, holding that a defendant is entitled to be present at a Rule 3.170 hearing and to be represented by conflict-free counsel when the defendant and trial counsel have adversarial positions regarding the circumstances of the plea.
Yes. A defendant is entitled to be present at a hearing on a Rule 3.170 motion to withdraw a plea and to be represented by conflict-free counsel. When a defendant alleges he was misled by his counsel into entering a plea, this constitutes a facially sufficient challenge to the voluntariness of the plea warranting a hearing with the defendant present and represented by conflict-free counsel, particularly when the defendant and trial counsel hold adversarial positions regarding the circumstances of the plea.
[1] A defendant is entitled to be present at an evidentiary hearing on a motion to withdraw a guilty plea.
[2] A defendant is entitled to conflict-free counsel to advise and assist with motions to withdraw a guilty plea.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Because a motion pursuant to rule 3.170 has been treated as a critical stage of proceedings in the trial court, Garcia was entitled to be present at the hearing and to have counsel represent him.”
Establishes that Rule 3.170 hearings are critical stages at which defendants have constitutional rights to presence and counsel.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGarcia wrote a letter to the trial court requesting to withdraw his guilty plea, alleging his trial counsel had misled him into entering it. The trial…
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
KELLY, Judge.
Carlos Garcia appeals from the order denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. He argues that the trial court erred in denying the motion without his presence at an evidentiary hearing and by failing to appoint a conflict-free attorney to represent him during the hearing on his motion. We agree and reverse.
Garcia wrote a letter to the trial court asking to withdraw his plea, alleging that his trial counsel misled him into entering his guilty plea. Garcia was represented by counsel at the time he wrote the letter. The trial court treated the letter as a motion to withdraw a plea and questioned Garcia’s trial counsel as to the circumstances of the plea. Garcia was not present at this informal hearing, nor was he represented by independent counsel. After trial counsel explained that he could not conceive of how he could have misled Garcia, the trial court summarily denied the motion.
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(2) allows a defendant to challenge the 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 a defendant may withdraw his plea if he was misled and induced to plead by his counsel’s mistaken advice).
Thus, Garcia’s motion was facially sufficient to warrant a hearing. Because a motion pursuant to rule 3.170 has been treated as a critical stage of proceedings in the trial court, Garcia was entitled to be present at the hearing and to have counsel represent him. See Miller v. State, 838 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (holding that a defendant is entitled to conflict-free counsel to advise and assist with motions filed under rule 3.170(2)); Sanders v. State, 787 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (stating that a defendant is entitled to be present at every critical stage of the proceedings).
The State argues that the holding in Harris v. State, 818 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 835 So. 2d 266 (Fla.2002), requires affirmance in this case. In Harris, this court held that Harris’s allegation that he “did not fully understand the sentence” was insufficient to sustain a motion under rule 3.170(2); therefore, the trial court was not required to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the motion with Harris present and represented by conflict-free counsel.
However, Harris is distinguishable. Harris’s minimal allegation was not a valid ground under rule 3.170(2). Further, at the hearing on the motion, Harris’s counsel continued to represent Harris in the matter and never took a position adverse to Harris’s interest. In addition, the court in Harris never conducted an evidentiary hearing on the motion.
In this case, the trial court took testimony from Garcia’s trial counsel (although it was unsworn), and counsel’s position was adverse to Garcia’s. Once it became clear that Garcia and his counsel had adversarial positions concerning what actually happened while counsel was advising Garcia concerning the plea, Garcia was entitled to conflict-free counsel. See Gunn v. State, 841 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Jones v. State, 827 So. 2d 1086 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Padgett v. State, 743 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). The denial of the constitutional right to assistance of counsel can never be treated as harmless error. Jones, 827 So. 2d at 1087.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new hearing on the motion to withdraw plea at which Garcia is to be present, unless he waives his presence, and he must be represented by conflict-free counsel.
Reversed.
SALCINES and CANADY, JJ, Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (20 total)
-
Sheppard v. State, 17 So. 3d 275 (Fla. 2009)…hered to its holding in Mourra that a pro se motion to withdraw a plea that does not contain a specific request to discharge counsel should be stricken as a nullity, this holding is inconsistent with the district court’s decision in Garcia v. State, 846 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), decided the year before Iaconetti and Mourra. In Garcia, the defendant wrote a letter to the trial court asking to withdraw his plea, alleging that counsel misled him into entering the guilty plea. 846 So. 2d at 660-61. Although…
-
Krautheim v. State, 38 So. 3d 802 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…-free counsel and without arranging for Mr. Krau-theim to be present at the hearing. A motion to withdraw plea is a critical stage of the proceedings at which a defendant is entitled to be present and to have counsel represent him. Garcia v. State, 846 So. 2d 660, 661 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); 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 ....” (qu…
-
White v. State, 15 So. 3d 833 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…ed by the record.’ ” Bayer v. State, 902 So. 2d 353, 354 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (quoting Boule, 884 So. 2d at 1024); see also Townsend v. State, 927 So. 2d 1064, 1065 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). Mr. White’s motion was facially sufficient. See Garcia v. State, 846 So. 2d 660, 661 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (holding that a rule 3.170(1) motion based on the allegation that counsel misled the defendant into entering the plea was facially sufficient because it challenged the voluntariness of the plea). A review of the plea colloquy…
Previewing 3 of 20 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)
- Gunn v. State, 841 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- O'Neill v. State, 841 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Jones v. State, 827 So. 2d 1086 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- Miles Lee Brown v. State, 835 So. 2d 402 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Miller v. State, 838 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Ricardo v. State, 647 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Kristopher Sanders v. State, 787 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)