AURELIO GONZALEZ, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed conviction and remanded for reconsideration of pro se plea withdrawal motion where allegations of counsel's improper legal advice create an adversarial relationship requiring limited inquiry under Sheppard v. State.
A trial court must conduct a limited inquiry when a pro se motion to withdraw a plea alleges counsel's misadvice, misrepresentation, or coercion that creates an adversarial relationship, rather than dismissing the motion as a nullity for lack of explicit discharge request.
[1] A trial court must conduct a limited inquiry into a pro se motion to withdraw a plea that alleges counsel's misadvice, misrepresentation, or coercion creating an adversar…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“to conduct a limited inquiry to determine whether an adversarial relationship exists such that defense counsel can no longer continue to represent his or her client at a hearing in which counsel will likely be an adverse witness”
Supreme Court's directive in Sheppard regarding the trial court's obligation when reviewing pro se motions to withdraw plea based on counsel's alleged misconduct
Aurelio Gonzalez was convicted of second-degree murder and aggravated child abuse and filed a pro se motion to withdraw his plea alleging improper leg…
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 Affirmative Misrepresentation cases and more on FLexlaw
Aurelio Gonzalez appeals his convictions for second-degree murder and aggravated child abuse. We reverse and remand for the trial court to reconsider Gonzalez’s pro se motion to withdraw his plea.
In his motion to withdraw plea, Gonzalez alleged that his counsel gave improper legal advice. In accordance with this court’s precedent, the trial court dismissed the motion as a nullity because Gonzalez did not include an unequivocal request to discharge counsel. While this case was pending on appeal, the supreme court decided Sheppard, v. State, 17 So.3d 275, 277 (Fla. 2009), in which the court recognized a limited exception to the rule of striking pro se pleadings as nullities “where a defendant files a pro se motion to withdraw a plea pursuant to rule 3.170(7), which contains specific allegations that give rise to an adversarial relationship, such as misadvice, affirmative misrepresentations, or coercion that led to the entry of the plea.” The supreme court directed that the trial court is required “to conduct a limited inquiry to determine whether an adversarial relationship exists such that defense counsel can no longer continue to represent his or her client at a hearing in which counsel will likely be an adverse witness.” Id. at 277 (footnote omitted).
Because Sheppard addresses the situation presented by Gonzalez’s pro se motion, we reverse and remand with directions to reconsider the motion to withdraw plea based on the procedure outlined in Sheppard.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
KHOUZAM and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wisniewski v. State, 177 So. 3d 70 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)…See Peterson v. State, 881 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (“Therefore, without reaching the merits, we reverse and remand for further consid [*72] eration by the trial court.”), approved of by Sheppard, 17 So. 3d at 277; see also Gonzalez v. State, 21 So. 3d 169, 170 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (“[W]e reverse and remand with directions to reconsider the motion to withdraw plea based on the procedure outlined in Sheppard.”)-, Escobar v. State, 126 So. 3d 277, 281 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (reversing and remanding where “[t]…
-
Gillette v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2024)…Conclusion Mr. Gillette timely filed facially sufficient letters seeking to withdraw his plea. The trial court erred in dismissing the requests. We reverse and remand for a hearing pursuant to Sheppard, 17 So. 3d at 286–87. See Gonzalez v. State, 21 So. 3d 169, 170 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) ("[W]e reverse and remand with directions to reconsider the motion to withdraw plea based on the procedure outlined in Sheppard."); cf. Thelus v. State, 298 So. 3d 126, 127 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020) ("If the trial court denies Thel…
-
Gillette v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2024)…Conclusion Mr. Gillette timely filed facially sufficient letters seeking to withdraw his plea. The trial court erred in dismissing the requests. We reverse and remand for a hearing pursuant to Sheppard, 17 So. 3d at 286–87. See Gonzalez v. State, 21 So. 3d 169, 170 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) ("[W]e reverse and remand with directions to reconsider the motion to withdraw plea based on the procedure outlined in Sheppard."); cf. Thelus v. State, 298 So. 3d 126, 127 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020) ("If the trial court denies Thel…
Authorities Cited
- Sheppard v. State, 17 So. 3d 275 (Fla. 2009)