RICHARD MICHAEL MATTIA, 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.
Richard Michael Mattia appealed his convictions and sentences, challenging the trial court's denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The court affirmed the convictions and sentences but reversed the order denying the motion to withdraw plea because the trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing on the motion without Mattia being present and without a valid waiver of his right to attend.
The trial court erred in conducting the evidentiary hearing on the motion to withdraw plea without Mattia's presence and without a knowing, voluntary, and valid waiver of his right to be present. A motion to withdraw plea is a critical stage of proceedings at which a defendant is entitled to be present.
[1] A defendant has a right to be present at an evidentiary hearing on a motion to withdraw a plea.
[2] A defendant's knowing, free, and voluntary waiver of the right to be present at a hearing must be reflected in the record.
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“A motion to withdraw plea filed pursuant to rule 3.170 is a critical stage of the proceedings in the trial court, and a defendant is entitled to be present at the hearing on his motion.”
Establishes the fundamental right of a defendant to be present at a hearing on a motion to withdraw a plea.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMattia filed a motion to withdraw his plea pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(1). The trial court held an evidentiary hearing on the…
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 Right To Conflict-Free Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
SILBERMAN, Judge.
Richard Michael Mattia appeals his convictions and sentences and the trial court’s order denying his motion to withdraw plea filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(1). We affirm without comment the convictions and sentences, but we reverse the order denying the motion to withdraw plea because the trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing on the motion in Mattia’s absence and without Mattia waiving his right to be present.
A motion to withdraw plea filed pursuant to rule 3.170 is a critical stage of the proceedings in the trial court, and a defendant is entitled to be present at the hearing on his motion. See Newsome v. State, 877 So. 2d 938, 940 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Garcia v. State, 846 So. 2d 660, 661 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Although Mattia’s counsel indicated at the hearing that he did not believe Mattia’s presence was necessary to establish a basis for withdrawal of the plea, the record does not reflect that Mattia knowingly, freely, and voluntarily waived his right to be present. See Turner v. State, 530 So. 2d 45, 49 (Fla.1988); Singletary v. State, 870 So. 2d 851, 852 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Tarver v. State, 741 So. 2d 551, 553 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). The record also does not reflect that Mattia was even aware that a hearing would take place or that he had a right to be at the hearing. Additionally, the record does not support a conclusion that Mattia’s absence from the evidentiary hearing was harmless. Cf. Turner, 530 So. 2d at 49-50 (noting that under the circumstances Turner’s “absence did not thwart the fundamental fairness of the proceedings” and was harmless).
Accordingly, we reverse the order denying the motion to withdraw plea and remand for the trial court to conduct a new hearing. Mattia shall be present at the hearing unless he knowingly, freely, and voluntarily waives his right to be present. Because a new hearing is required, Mat-tia’s challenge to the trial court’s findings in the order denying the motion to withdraw plea is moot. We also note that while the record does not support Mattia’s argument that he was denied the right to conflict-free counsel, if counsel’s position becomes adverse to Mattia he would be entitled to the appointment of conflict-free counsel to represent him at the new hearing. See Newsome, 877 So. 2d at 940.
Convictions and sentences affirmed; order denying motion to withdraw plea reversed and remanded with directions.
ALTENBERND and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. State, 959 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…to file an amended motion, or request the trial court appoint a special public defender to file such motion. Given the allegations, this was error. See Rivera v. State, 954 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (citation omitted); see also Mattia v. State, 907 So. 2d 683, 683 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (“A motion to withdraw plea filed pursuant to rule 3.170 is a critical stage of the proceedings in the trial court, and a defendant is entitled to be present at the hearing on his motion.”) (citations omitted); Scippio v. Sta…
-
Jones v. State, 981 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…iled by trial counsel, and the State agrees. “A motion to withdraw plea filed pursuant to rule 3.170 is a critical stage of the proceedings in the trial court, and a defendant is entitled to be present at the hearing on his motion.” Mattia v. State, 907 So. 2d 683, 683 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). The record in this case does not indicate that Jones knowingly, freely, and voluntarily waived his right to be present at the hearing held on the motion to withdraw plea filed by counsel. See id. at 683 (holding that even th…
-
Goldsmith v. State, 937 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938)). The right to self-representation applies at any critical stage in the proceedings, see Kearse v. State, 858 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003), and a motion to withdraw plea constitutes such a critical stage, see Mattia v. State, 907 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). Following the decision in Faretta, the Florida Supreme Court adopted Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.111(d)(2), which provides that when a defendant seeks to waive assistance of counsel,- the trial court must conduct a thor…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Turner v. State, 530 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 1987)
- Garcia v. State, 846 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Newsome v. State, 877 So. 2d 938 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Singletary v. State, 870 So. 2d 851 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
- Tarver v. State, 741 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)