TERRENCE HARRIS, DOC # 507723, 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.
Terrence Harris appeals the trial court's dismissal of his pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea for cocaine possession. The appellate court reverses and remands because the trial court failed to follow the proper procedures established in Sheppard v. State for considering pro se motions to withdraw pleas based on allegations of attorney misconduct creating an adversarial relationship.
A trial court must hold a limited hearing to determine whether an adversarial relationship exists between defendant and counsel when a pro se motion to withdraw plea is based on allegations giving rise to such a relationship. If an adversarial relationship is found, the court must determine whether the defendant's allegations are conclusively refuted by the record.
[1] A pro se motion filed by a represented defendant is ordinarily a nullity, but an exception exists when the motion alleges misadvice, misrepresentation, or coercion by cou…
[2] Allegations of misadvice by counsel regarding sentencing, the applicability of a statute, or the value of property are sufficient to give rise to an adversarial relations…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“the supreme court decided Sheppard, 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 plea pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(() based on allegations giving rise to an adversarial relationship”
Establishes the key precedent that created an exception to the nullity rule for pro se motions to withdraw pleas based on allegations of adversarial relationship with counsel
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHarris pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine and received eighteen months of drug offender probation. After sentencing, he filed a pro se motion to …
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 Adversarial Relationship Between Defendant And Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
Terrence Harris appeals the trial court’s order striking his pro se motion to withdraw plea as a nullity. We reverse and remand for the court to reconsider Harris’s motion based on the procedures outlined in Sheppard v. State, 17 So.3d 275 (Fla.2009).
Harris pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine and was placed on eighteen months’ drug offender probation. He filed a timely motion to withdraw his plea after sentencing, alleging that his trial counsel failed to inform him of the maximum sentence that he could receive if he violated his probation. Harris also alleged that his trial counsel misadvised him about the investigation of a defense witness. The trial court struck the motion as a nullity because Harris did not include an unequivocal request to discharge counsel.
While Harris’s case was pending on appeal, the supreme court decided Sheppard, 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 plea pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(() based on allegations giving rise to an adversarial relationship. 17 So.3d at 287. In such a case, the trial court should hold a limited hearing to determine whether an adversarial relationship between counsel and the defendant *6has arisen. Id. If the court finds that an adversarial relationship exists, it must then determine whether the defendant’s allegations are conclusively refuted by the record. Id. The court’s failure to hold a hearing may be considered harmless error if the allegations in the motion are conclusively refuted by the record. See Johnson v. State, 22 So.3d 840, 844-45 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (finding harmless error in trial court’s failure to hold hearing where defendant’s claim was refuted by plea colloquy and plea agreement).
Because the brief plea colloquy in this case fails to conclusively refute Harris’s allegations, we reverse and remand for the trial court to reconsider Harris’s motion to withdraw plea based on the procedures outlined in Sheppard.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
CASANUEVA, C.J., and KELLY, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Burns v. State, 50 So. 3d 744 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…sary. We recognize that conflict-free counsel is not necessary if “the record conclusively refutes the defendant’s allegations.” Smith, 21 So. 3d at 74. Under those circumstances, any error committed by the trial court is harmless. Harris v. State, 45 So. 3d 4, 6 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); Johnson v. State, 22 So. 3d 840, 844-45 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (finding harmless error in the trial court’s failure to hold a hearing where the defendant’s claim was refuted by plea colloquy and plea agreement). Our record does n…
Authorities Cited
- Sheppard v. State, 17 So. 3d 275 (Fla. 2009)
- Johnson v. State, 22 So. 3d 840 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)