RODANN WILLIAMS, 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.
Rodann Williams appealed his conviction for driving with a revoked license as a habitual offender, arguing the trial court erred by denying his pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea rather than striking it as unauthorized. The court affirmed the conviction but remanded to strike the improper motion, finding that a represented defendant cannot file pro se pleadings without first discharging counsel.
A trial court should strike as unauthorized a pro se motion filed by a represented defendant who did not seek to discharge counsel. The proper remedy is to withdraw the order denying the motion and enter an order striking it as a nullity, leaving open any future rights to file proper motions under the applicable rules.
[1] A pro se motion filed by a defendant who has counsel of record and has not sought to discharge that counsel is an unauthorized pleading and should be stricken as a nullit…
[2] A trial court errs by ruling on the merits of an unauthorized pro se motion.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 Williams had counsel of record at the time that he filed his pro se motion to withdraw plea and did not seek to discharge his counsel, the trial court should have stricken the motion as an unauthorized pro se pleading and treated it as a nullity.”
Establishes the core legal principle that a represented defendant cannot file pro se motions without first discharging counsel.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliams pleaded guilty to driving while license revoked as a habitual offender and was sentenced. While represented by counsel, Williams filed a pro …
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 Motion To Withdraw Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
SILBERMAN, Judge.
Rodann Williams appeals from a judgment and sentence for driving while license revoked as a habitual offender pursuant to his guilty plea. His sole argument on appeal is that the trial court erred in entering an order denying his pro se motion to withdraw plea on the merits when it should have entered an order striking the motion as unauthorized pursuant to Sharp v. State, 884 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004), and Mourra v. State, 884 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). He asks that we direct the trial court to withdraw the order denying his motion to withdraw plea and to enter an order striking the motion as unauthorized. The State agrees that the order denying the motion to withdraw plea should be stricken.
Because Williams had counsel of record at the time that he filed his pro se motion to withdraw plea and did not seek to discharge his counsel, the trial court should have stricken the motion as an unauthorized pro se pleading and treated it as a nullity. Sharp, 884 So. 2d at 512; Mourra, 884 So. 2d at 321; see also Mingo v. State, 914 So. 2d 1070, 1070 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (remanding for trial court to withdraw order denying pro se motion to withdraw plea and to enter order striking the motion as unauthorized pursuant to Sharp and Mourra). Accordingly, we affirm Williams’s conviction and sentence but remand for the trial court to withdraw the order denying his pro se motion to withdraw plea and to enter an order striking the motion as unauthorized. Our ruling is without prejudice to any right that Williams may have to file a timely motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
Affirmed and remanded with directions.
SALCINES and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
D.M. v. State, 84 So. 3d 1242 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)…, D.M. could have preserved the question of whether his pleas were voluntary by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. And instead of denying D.M.’s motions, the circuit court should have stricken them as unauthorized, cf. Williams v. State, 971 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008), or treated them as habeas petitions. Although we have no jurisdiction to review the delinquency judgments, rule 9.145(b)(2) confers jurisdiction to review “orders entered after adjudication.” We reverse the denial of the unautho…
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)
- Sharp v. State, 884 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Mingo v. State, 914 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)