LARRY L. PURNELL, 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.
A pro se motion filed by a defendant represented by counsel is generally treated as a nullity unless it unequivocally requests to discharge counsel.
Purnell, represented by counsel, filed a pro se motion to withdraw his plea, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court denied 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 Hybrid Representation cases and more on FLexlaw
VILLANTI, Judge.
Larry Purnell appeals his judgment and sentence to forty-eight months’ prison for drug offenses, entered after he pleaded guilty. Purnell raises only one issue on appeal — the trial court’s dismissal of his pro se motion to withdraw his plea under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(i). We affirm Purnell’s judgment and sentence but reverse and remand for the trial court to strike Purnell’s pro se motion.
We recently stated in Mourra v. State, 884 So. 2d 316, 320-21 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004):
[A] defendant does not have a constitutional right to “hybrid” representation— that is, to be represented both by counsel and by himself. Thus, pleadings filed by a criminal defendant who is represented by counsel are generally treated as a nullity, unless they include some unequivocal request to discharge counsel.
(Citations omitted.)
Purnell filed his pro se motion on March 10, 2005. At the time, he was represented by counsel. The trial court orally dismissed the motion and subsequently entered a written order denying it. Purnell’s motion states, “Defendant representation was in conflict and ineffective.” This is not an unequivocal request to discharge counsel, especially considering that counsel representing Purnell at the time the pro se motion was filed did not represent Purnell at the plea hearing. Therefore, the trial court should have stricken Purnell’s motion and treated it as a nullity. See Mourra, 884 So. 2d at 321.
We affirm Purnell’s judgment-and sentence but reverse and remand with directions for the trial court to strike Pur-nell’s pro se motion to withdraw his plea.
ALTENBERND and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Murray v. State, 1 So. 3d 407 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…for rehearing on January 14, 2008. A defendant does not have the right to file pro se motions while also represented by counsel, and such motions should be treated as nullities unless they unequivocally seek to discharge counsel. Purnell v. State, 931 So. 2d 134, 135 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (citing Mourra v. State, 884 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)). Moreover, when a pro se motion for postconviction relief has been filed and counsel is appointed for the purposes of representation at an evidentiary hearing on tha…
-
Maderson v. State, 29 So. 3d 1184 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…harge counsel or where the defendant makes allegations that give rise to a clear adversarial relationship with counsel. Sheppard v. State, 17 So. 3d 275, 282 (Fla.2009); Murray v. State, 1 So. 3d 407, 408 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (citing Purnell v. State, 931 So. 2d 134, 135 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)). While the court entertained limited argument on the motion, the inquiry was insufficient. The record does not reflect that Appellant was given an adequate opportunity to address his claims to the court, nor did the court m…
Authorities Cited
- Bennie Frank Smith v. State, 884 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Kasim McDONALD v. State, 884 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)