JOHN CHRISTIANSEN, 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.
John Christiansen appealed his felony battery conviction and sentence, challenging the trial court's denial of his post-sentencing motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The court affirmed the conviction and sentence but reversed the denial of the motion, holding that the trial court should have stricken the pro se motion as a nullity because it was filed while he was represented by counsel and did not contain an unequivocal request to discharge counsel.
The trial court erred in denying the motion on the merits, but not for the reasons Christiansen argued. Because the pro se motion was filed while Christiansen was represented by counsel and did not contain an unequivocal request to discharge counsel, the trial court should have stricken the motion as a nullity rather than addressing it on the merits.
[1] A pro se motion to withdraw a plea, filed while the defendant is still represented by counsel and expressing dissatisfaction with counsel but not unequivocally requesting…
[2] A trial court errs in denying a motion to withdraw a plea on the merits without a hearing when the motion should have been stricken as a nullity.
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“Christiansen filed the motion pro se while he was still represented by counsel. The pro se motion to withdraw plea expressed dissatisfaction with counsel but did not contain an unequivocal request to discharge counsel; thus, the trial court should have stricken the motion as a nullity.”
States the core holding regarding how courts should treat pro se motions filed while counsel is still representing the defendant.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceChristiansen entered an open plea to felony battery after prior conviction pursuant to a negotiated agreement in which the State agreed to nolle prose…
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
SILBERMAN, Judge.
John Christiansen challenges his judgment and sentence for felony battery after prior conviction and contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to withdraw plea after sentencing. We affirm the judgment and sentence, reverse the denial of the motion, and remand for the trial court to strike the pro se motion as a nullity.
Christiansen entered an open plea to the charge of felony battery after prior conviction. Pursuant to the negotiated agreement, the State entered a nolle prosequi on two other charges. After sentencing, pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(Z), Christiansen filed a pro se motion to withdraw his plea. The motion alleged that the plea was involuntary and that counsel was ineffective and coerced him into entering the plea, but the motion did not request to discharge counsel. The trial court denied the motion on the merits without a hearing.
Christiansen contends that the trial court should have appointed conflict-free counsel and held an evidentiary hearing on his motion to withdraw plea. We disagree because Christiansen filed the motion pro se while he was still represented by counsel. The pro se motion to withdraw plea expressed dissatisfaction with counsel but did not contain an unequivocal request to discharge counsel; thus, the trial court should have stricken the motion as a nullity. See Sheppard v. State, 988 So. 2d 74, 79 (Fla. 2d DCA July 16, 2008) (certifying conflict with Bermudez v. State, 901 So. 2d 981 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), and Peterson v. State, 881 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)), review granted, No. SC08-1452, 990 So. 2d 1060, 2008 WL 4551389 (Fla. Sept. 29, 2008) (table); Mourra v. State, 884 So. 2d 316, 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); see also McClelland v. State, 995 So. 2d 557, 557, 2008 WL 4092796 (Fla. 2d DCA Sept. 5, 2008) (citing Sheppard and Mourra). Thus, we affirm the judgment and sentence, reverse the denial of the pro se motion to withdraw plea, and remand for the trial court to strike the pro se motion. As we did in Sheppard, we certify conflict with Bermudez and Peterson.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
CASANUEVA and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sheppard v. State, 17 So. 3d 275 (Fla. 2009)…ons in Bermudez and Peterson. We also disapprove of the Second District’s opinions that have followed Sheppard to the extent that they conflict with this decision. See Sumbry v. State, 3 So. 3d 1259 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (table); Christiansen v. State, 993 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); McClelland v. State, 995 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Sheppard pled guilty to violating his community control previously imposed for convictions of two counts of uttering a forged instrument —…
-
Christiansen v. State, 26 So. 3d 1287 (Fla. 2009)…PER CURIAM. We have for review Christiansen v. State, 993 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008), in which the Second District Court of Appeal cited as authority its decision in Sheppard v. State, 988 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008), quashed, 17 So. 3d 275 (Fla.2009), and, as it had done in that case, certified conflict with dec…
-
Christiansen v. State, 29 So. 3d 1163 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…SILBERMAN, Judge. In Christiansen v. State, 26 So. 3d 1287 (Fla.2009), the Supreme Court of Florida quashed this court’s decision in Christiansen v. State, 993 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008), and directed this court on remand to reconsider the matter in light of the supreme court’s decision in Sheppard v. State, 17 So. 3d 275 (Fla.2009). This court had relied upon its opinion in Sheppard v. State, 988 So. 2d 74 (Fla.…
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)
- Bermudez v. State, 901 So. 2d 981 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
- Peterson v. State, 881 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
- Sheppard v. State, 988 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)
- State v. Hines, 990 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 2008)
- Scherry McCLELLAND v. State, 995 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)