SHAWN DAVIS, 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.
Shawn Davis appeals the trial court's summary denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The Fourth District affirms, holding that the motion lacked specific factual allegations required to trigger a hearing or appointment of conflict-free counsel.
A trial court is not required to hold a hearing or appoint conflict-free counsel when a motion to withdraw a plea contains no specific factual allegations giving rise to an adversarial relationship, such as allegations of misadvice, misrepresentation, or coercion. The motion must contain factual allegations that would require the court to hold a hearing.
[1] A motion to withdraw a plea under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(f) must contain specific factual allegations to require the trial court to hold a hearing or ap…
[2] A trial court is not required to appoint conflict-free counsel unless an adversarial relationship exists and the defendant's allegations are not conclusively refuted by t…
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 motion contained such "allegations giving rise to an adversarial relationship," the trial court "should hold a limited hearing at which the defendant, defense counsel, and the State are present."”
Establishes the legal standard from Sheppard requiring a hearing when specific allegations of adversarial relationships are present
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDavis pleaded no contest to robbery with a firearm while wearing a mask and kidnapping, with a sentencing agreement capping his prison term at 15 year…
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 Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.170(F) cases and more on FLexlaw
Shawn Davis appeals the summary denial of his motion to withdraw his plea *698pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170((). We affirm because the motion filed by defense counsel failed to contain specific factual allegations that would require the trial court to hold a hearing or appoint a new lawyer to handle the motion to withdraw plea.
Davis entered a plea of no contest to the crimes of robbery with a firearm while wearing a mask and kidnapping, with the understanding that he would be sentenced to no more than 15 years in prison followed by two years of probation. At a sentencing hearing, the tidal court sentenced him to concurrent terms of 15 years in prison followed by two years of probation.
Two weeks after sentencing, Davis’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw the plea in which she asserted that Davis informed her he wanted to withdraw his plea. The motion stated that she could not represent Davis, because their positions had become adverse; she requested that the trial judge appoint conflict-free counsel to represent him. The motion contained no specific factual allegations to support the motion. The trial court summarily denied the motion in a written order explaining the court’s reasoning.
Davis relies on Sheppard v. State, 17 So.3d 275 (Fla.2009). In Sheppard, a defendant filed a pro se motion to withdraw his plea which contained specific allegations that gave “rise to an adversarial relationship, such as allegations that counsel misadvised the defendant, made affirmative misrepresentations regarding the terms of the plea, or coerced the defendant into taking the plea.” Sheppard, 17 So.3d at 276-77. The Supreme Court held that where a motion contained such “allegations giving rise to an adversarial relationship,” the trial court “should hold a limited hearing at which the defendant, defense counsel, and the State are present.” Id. at 287. Under Sheppard, a “trial court is not required to appoint conflict-free counsel unless both an adversary relationship exists and the defendant’s allegations are not conclusively refuted by the record.” Nelfrard v. State, 34 So.3d 221, 223 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (emphasis removed). In this case, as the trial court recognized, it was not necessary to hold a hearing on the rule 3.170(() motion because the motion contained no factual allegations to support the request for relief.
This case is controlled by Williams v. State, 919 So.2d 645 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). There, defense counsel filed a rule 3.170(() motion with only a “bare allegation” of coercion, unsupported by any facts. In part, we held that such a bare allegation was insufficient to require the trial court to hold a hearing on the motion or to appoint conflict free counsel. Id. at 646. Here, defense counsel’s bare bones motion distinguishes this case from Schriber v. State, 959 So.2d 1254, 1255 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007), where a defendant filed a pro se motion to withdraw a plea containing specific allegations of “misadvice and ineffective assistance.” Schriber distinguished Williams as a case where “Williams’s original attorney drew up and filed the motion to withdraw the plea which was found to be insufficient.” Id. at 1257.
We therefore affirm the trial court’s ruling. As we did in Williams, we note that “our affirmance is without prejudice for appellant to file a motion for postconviction relief on any legally sufficient grounds supported by factual allegations that have not been conclusively refuted by the record.” 919 So.2d at 646 (emphasis removed).
WARNER, J., and FISHMAN, JANE D., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Escobar v. State, 126 So. 3d 277 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)…ointment of conflict-free counsel to defend allegation that counsel misadvised him of potential defenses to probation violation at conclusion of evidentiary hearing, where the defendant’s allegation was not conclusively refuted); cf. Davis v. State, 52 So. 3d 697, 698 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (affirming denial of motion to withdraw plea for lack of specific allegations); Nelfrard v. State, 34 So. 3d 221, 223 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (concluding the defendant’s motion to withdraw plea on ground his counsel coerced him…
-
Delbert G. Hall v. State, 72 So. 3d 290 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…ed a conflict-free representative. Id. This court has provided that factual allegations must support the request for relief when a defendant files a pro se motion claiming his or her relationship with his counsel has become adverse. Davis v. State, 52 So. 3d 697, 698 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). Here, Hall stated in his motion that his attorney “did not handle [his] case properly”; that he “was lied to, pressured, frightened into taking this plea deal”; and that he wished he knew that he “had that option to dismiss…
-
Davis v. State, 126 So. 3d 1257 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…sel”; counsel also asserted that “[presumably this ... resulted in an involuntary plea being entered by Defendant.” We are not entirely convinced that such a general allegation was sufficient to warrant a Sheppard hearing. See, e.g., Davis v. State, 52 So. 3d 697, 698 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (holding that counsel’s motion was not sufficient where counsel alleged only that counsel and appellant’s positions had become adverse); Carter v. State, 22 So. 3d 793, 795 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (recognizing that a general all…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Sheppard v. State, 17 So. 3d 275 (Fla. 2009)
- Nelfrard v. State, 34 So. 3d 221 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- Braddy Williams v. State, 919 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- Schriber v. State, 959 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)