STEPHEN PERRETTE, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 2007-07-18
No. 4D06-4411
GUNTHER, FARMER and MAY, JJ., concur.
960 So. 2d 888 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (2007) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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.

Synopsis

A defendant appealed his felony battery conviction following a guilty plea, but the appellate court found the appeal premature because the trial court had not yet ruled on the defendant's timely pro se motion to withdraw his plea based on allegedly deficient assistance of counsel regarding sentencing consequences.


Holding

The appeal was premature because the filing of the pro se motion to withdraw suspended rendition of the conviction and sentence. The case was remanded for the trial court to appoint conflict-free counsel and conduct an evidentiary hearing on the motion to withdraw the plea.


Headnotes

[1] A timely filed motion to withdraw a plea suspends rendition of the conviction and sentence, rendering a subsequent notice of appeal premature.

[2] A pro se motion to withdraw a plea is not a nullity, even if the defendant is represented by counsel.

Previewing 2 of 4 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

Key Quotes

“The filing of the motion suspended rendition of the conviction and sentence. This renders the notice of appeal premature.”

Establishes that the timely pro se motion to withdraw plea suspended the sentence and rendered the appeal premature.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

The defendant pleaded guilty to felony battery in exchange for the State's nolle prosequi of an attempted sexual battery charge. The trial court sente…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals his conviction and sentence following a plea to a felony battery charge. The public defender filed an Anders Brief. However, in reviewing the record, we find this appeal to be premature. We therefore remand the case to the trial court.

The defendant entered a plea to one count of felony battery in exchange for the State’s nolle prosequi of a count for attempted sexual battery. The trial court sentenced the defendant to five years in Florida State Prison. Within thirty days of his sentence, the defendant filed a pro se motion to withdraw plea, alleging that his plea was involuntary based upon the misadviee of counsel. More specifically, the defendant alleged that his lawyer had told him that he should plead to the felony battery charge in exchange for the State’s nolle prosequi of the attempted sexual battery charge because the latter charge carried a twenty-five-year mandatory minimum sentence. When the motion was filed, the defendant was represented by counsel. The trial court never ruled on the motion.

The public defender filed an Anders Brief, not only suggesting there were no issues of merit, but also suggesting that there would be no need to remand the case for a ruling on the motion to withdraw because the misadviee alleged was actually not misadviee. In essence, the public defender agreed with the state that the mandatory minimum twenty-five-year sentence did apply to the attempted sexual battery charge.

Our review of the record reveals the following. First, the pro se motion to withdraw was timely filed. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.170(J). Second, the filing of the motion suspended rendition of the conviction and sentence. This renders the notice of appeal premature. McGee v. State, 947 So. 2d 681, 682 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).

Third, the pro se motion falls within an exception to the general rule preventing a defendant from filing pro se motions while represented by counsel. See Bermudez v. State, 901 So. 2d 981, 984 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (pro se motion to withdraw was not a nullity even though defendant was represented by counsel). Fourth, an evidentiary hearing will be necessary to resolve the motion to withdraw. See Cadet v. State, 795 So. 2d 228, 229 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).

We therefore remand the case to the trial court for appointment of conflict-free counsel and an evidentiary hearing on the defendant’s pending motion.

Remanded.

GUNTHER, FARMER and MAY, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Brace v. State, 39 So. 3d 338 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)
    …PER CURIAM. DISMISSED. See Perrette v. State, 960 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (holding that the filing of a timely pro se motion to withdraw plea alleging conflict with counsel suspended rendition of judgment and sentence, thus rendering appeal premature). Gf Clemons v. State, 3 So. 3d 364, 365-66 (Fla. 2d…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw