MICHAEL ESTRADA, 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.
Michael Estrada appeals his robbery conviction and sentence following his guilty plea. The court reversed the trial court's denial of his motion to withdraw the plea because he was not provided effective assistance of counsel at the critical withdrawal hearing, requiring remand for the appointment of conflict-free counsel.
The court reversed the denial of the motion to withdraw plea and remanded for the trial court to appoint conflict-free counsel to assist Estrada in presenting his motion to withdraw the plea, as the motion to withdraw was a critical stage at which Estrada was entitled to effective assistance of conflict-free counsel.
[1] A defendant is entitled to the assistance of conflict-free counsel at a hearing on a motion to withdraw a guilty plea, even if the motion is filed pro se.
[2] A defendant's right to counsel extends to critical stages of a criminal proceeding, including hearings on motions to withdraw a guilty plea.
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“The hearing on the motion to withdraw plea was a critical stage of the proceeding at which Mr. Estrada was entitled to be present and to have counsel represent him.”
Establishes that the motion to withdraw plea hearing constituted a critical stage requiring counsel representation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn June 19, 2009, Michael Estrada committed a robbery with a weapon. He subsequently entered a guilty plea to robbery with a weapon in exchange for an…
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
Michael Estrada appeals his conviction and sentence for robbery with a weapon for an incident that occurred on June 19, 2009. After sentencing, Mr. Estrada filed a timely pro se motion to withdraw his plea pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(7), which was denied after a hearing at which the prosecutor appeared and Mr. Estrada appeared without representation. We reverse the denial of the motion to withdraw plea and remand for the appointment of conflict-free counsel.
At the time Mr. Estrada filed his pro se motion to withdraw plea, his appointed trial counsel had not filed a notice of appeal on behalf of Mr. Estrada and the time for filing a notice of appeal had not expired. Nothing in the appellate record reflects that Mr. Estrada’s appointed counsel had sought to withdraw from representation, that counsel had been discharged from representation, or that substitute counsel had been obtained or appointed. Thus, trial counsel’s obligation to Mr. Estrada was not at an end. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.111(e)(1)(A), (e)(3). Unfortunately, it appears that Mr. Estrada’s counsel was not provided with the writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum, which included the time, date, and place of the hearing on Mr. Estrada’s pro se motion to withdraw plea, or with any other notice of hearing on the motion to withdraw plea.
The hearing on the motion to withdraw plea was a critical stage of the proceeding at which Mr. Estrada was entitled to be present and to have counsel represent him. See Kepford v. State, 64 So.3d 189, 192 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). As in Kepford, the defendant’s written motion in conjunction with his allegations at the hearing demonstrated an adversarial relationship between himself and his attorney. Therefore, as we did in Kepford, we reverse the denial of the motion to withdraw plea and remand for the trial court to allow Mr. Estrada to present his motion or an amended motion with the assistance of conflict-free counsel.
We note that Mr. Estrada entered a guilty plea to robbery with a weapon in exchange for an agreed-upon disposition of ten years’ imprisonment as a habitual felony offender. The State also expressly waived a prison releasee reoffender disposition. Mr. Estrada could face a sentence of life imprisonment on this first-degree felony if he qualifies for sentencing as a habitual offender, and he could face a mandatory minimum term of thirty years’ imprisonment if he qualifies for sentencing as a prison releasee reoffender. Conflict *874counsel might be able to assist Mr. Estrada in making a decision as to whether it would be in his best interest to seek a withdrawal of his plea.
Reversed and remanded.
SILBERMAN, C.J., and DAVIS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Velasquez v. State, 146 So. 3d 1253 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…t-free counsel and denied the motion to withdraw plea. As the State properly concedes, Mr. Velasquez was entitled to counsel at the hearing on the motion to withdraw his plea because it was a critical stage of the proceeding. See Estrada v. State, 113 So. 3d 873, 873 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012); Kepford v. State, 64 So. 3d 189, 192 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). As in Estrada and Kepford, we reverse the order denying the motion to withdraw plea and remand for the trial court to appoint conflict-free counsel and rehear Mr. Vela…
Authorities Cited
- Kepford v. State, 64 So. 3d 189 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)