DONALD WADE BRUCE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Donald Wade Bruce appeals the denial of his motions to withdraw two nolo contendere pleas entered simultaneously on grand theft charges. The court reverses and remands, directing reconsideration under the procedure established in Sheppard v. State, which recognizes a limited exception for pro se motions to withdraw pleas when they allege facts suggesting an adversarial relationship between defendant and counsel.
The court reversed and remanded, holding that trial courts must reconsider pro se motions to withdraw pleas under the Sheppard procedure when the motion contains specific allegations giving rise to an adversarial relationship, such as misadvice, affirmative misrepresentations, or coercion.
[1] A trial court errs by striking a pro se motion to withdraw a plea when the defendant alleges attorney misadvice, misrepresentation, or coercion.
[2] When a defendant files a pro se motion to withdraw a plea alleging attorney misadvice, the trial court should not strike the pleading as a nullity but should hold a limit…
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“where a defendant files a pro se motion to withdraw a plea pursuant to rule 3.170((), 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.”
Establishes the Sheppard exception allowing pro se motions to withdraw pleas when specific adversarial circumstances are alleged
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBruce entered two simultaneous open nolo contendere pleas on October 1, 2007, for grand theft involving two separate victims—one involving a $10,000 d…
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 Pro Se Pleadings cases and more on FLexlaw
Donald Wade Bruce appeals trial court orders denying his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(£) motions to withdraw two simultaneously entered pleas to the court on the ground they were involuntarily made. We reverse and remand for the court to reconsider Bruce’s motions based upon the procedures outlined in Sheppard v. State, 17 So.3d 275 (Fla.2009).
The pleas Bruce seeks to withdraw are two open nolo contendere pleas made to the court on October 1, 2007: the first, in case number 07-12, for grand theft in violation of section 812.014, Florida Statutes (2007), for accepting a $10,000 deposit for work he promised to perform installing custom boat lifts, and then failing to perform the work; and the second, in case number 07-84, for grand theft in violation of the same statute by accepting $7500 from a different victim for the same type of work. On October 4, 2007, the trial court sentenced Bruce to thirty months in state prison and twenty months of probation in case number 07-12, and five years of probation in case number 07-84 to run consecutive to the first case. The court also required restitution.
A week later, Bruce filed identical motions in each case seeking to withdraw his pleas. The trial court denied both motions on the ground that each was a nullity, telling Bruce, “[W]hen you have an attorney, you can’t file motions on your own.” The Court also denied Bruce’s counsel’s “Amended Motion For The Court to Appoint [Bruce] Conflict-Free Counsel.”
While Bruce’s case was pending on appeal, our supreme court decided Sheppard, recognizing 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((), 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.” Id. at 277. In such a case, the supreme court directed that the trial court is required “to conduct a limited inquiry to determine whether an adver*871sarial 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. (footnote omitted). Of course, the trial court did not have the benefit of Sheppard at the time it considered Bruce’s pro se motions to withdraw plea.
Because Sheppard addresses the situation presented by Bruce’s pro se motions, we reverse and remand with directions to reconsider the motions to withdraw plea based on the procedure outlined in Sheppard.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wisniewski v. State, 177 So. 3d 70 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)…1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (reversing and remanding where “[t]he trial court erred by not considering first whether this (or any other) allegation was sufficient to constitute” an adversarial relationship between Escobar and his attorney); Bruce v. State, 38 So. 3d 869, 870 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (reversing and remanding for consideration under Sheppard where “[t]he trial court denied both motions on the ground that each was a nullity” and advised Bruce that he could not file his own motions because he had an attorney…
Authorities Cited
- Sheppard v. State, 17 So. 3d 275 (Fla. 2009)