DAVID DAVILA, 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.
The court reversed the trial court's denial of a pro se motion to withdraw a guilty plea where the defendant alleged coercion by his attorney, holding that a defendant is entitled to conflict-free counsel at this critical stage before an evidentiary hearing.
A defendant alleging coercion by his attorney in entering a guilty plea is entitled to conflict-free counsel at the motion to withdraw plea stage, and the trial court must conduct an evidentiary hearing after appointing such counsel.
[1] A defendant alleging coercion by counsel in entering a guilty plea is entitled to conflict-free appointed counsel and an evidentiary hearing on a motion to withdraw the p…
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“A motion to withdraw plea is a critical stage of a criminal proceeding at which an indigent defendant is entitled to court-appointed counsel.”
Citing Hampton v. State, establishing the right to appointed counsel at the plea withdrawal stage.
David Davila filed two pro se motions to withdraw his guilty plea, alleging coercion by his attorney. The trial court denied both motions while Davila…
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
David Davila (“Appellant”) appeals the trial court’s denial of his two pro se motions to withdraw his plea pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(i). Appellant argues, and the State properly concedes,' that the trial court erred by denying Appellant’s motions while he was unrepresented by counsel. See Hampton v. State, 848 So.2d 405, 405 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (“A motion to withdraw plea is a critical stage of a criminal proceeding at which an indigent defendant *257is entitled to court-appointed counsel.” (citing Padgett v. State, 743 So.2d 70 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999))), When, as here,.^defendant moves to withdraw his plea “on the ground .that he was coerced by his attorney, the trial court must either appoint conflict-free counsel or permit the defendant the opportunity to secure the same, and then conduct an evidentiary hearing on the motion to withdraw the plea.” Cadet v. State, 795 So.2d 228, 229 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (citing Lingenfelser v. State, 734 So.2d 472 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Roberts v. State, 670 So.2d 1042 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)). We reverse and remand for the trial court to appoint conflict-free counsel and hold an evidentia-ry hearing on Appellant’s second motion to withdraw his plea.
REVERSED and REMANDED with INSTRUCTIONS.
LAWSON, C.J., TORPY and WALLIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Padgett v. State, 743 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Roberts v. State, 670 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Lingenfelser v. State, 734 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Delmar Hampton v. State, 848 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Cadet v. State, 795 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)