BRIAN J. BLAND, 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.
Brian Bland appeals the trial court's dismissal of his motion to withdraw a guilty plea entered after sentencing. The appellate court reverses, finding the motion was facially sufficient and remands for an evidentiary hearing, holding that Bland's allegation that counsel withheld information about the State's intent to drop a charge states a potentially valid ground for withdrawal.
The motion was facially sufficient and not conclusory. Bland's allegation that counsel withheld material information about the State's plans to drop a charge states a potentially valid ground for withdrawal, and the trial court erred in dismissing the motion without an evidentiary hearing.
[1] A motion to withdraw a plea after sentencing is facially sufficient if it alleges facts that, if true, would entitle the defendant to relief.
[2] A defendant may be entitled to withdraw a plea if counsel withheld material information that, if known, would have led the defendant to reject the plea agreement.
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“Mr. Bland's motion is not conclusory. He alleged that before he entered the negotiated plea, his counsel told a defense witness that the State was going to drop one of the cases. Allegedly, counsel withheld this information from Mr. Bland.”
Establishes that the motion contained specific factual allegations sufficient to avoid being conclusory and warrant an evidentiary hearing.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBland was charged with aggravated battery with intention to cause great bodily harm in two separate cases. He entered a negotiated plea to the first c…
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
Brian James Bland appeals an order dismissing his motion to withdraw plea after sentencing. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.170(Z). Because the motion was facially sufficient, we reverse and remand for the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing on Mr. Bland’s motion.
The State charged Mr. Bland in two separate cases with aggravated battery with intention to cause great bodily harm and aggravated battery with a deadly weapon. See § 784.045(l)(a)(l), (l)(a)(2), Fla. Stat. (2011). He entered a negotiated plea to the first charge in exchange for the dismissal of the second charge. He agreed to a sentence of 52.5 months in prison, followed by four years’ probation. The trial court accepted Mr. Bland’s plea as freely and voluntarily made and sentenced him according to the plea agreement.
Mr. Bland filed a pro se motion to withdraw his plea after sentencing. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.170(Z). He asked the trial court to appoint conflict-free counsel and allow him to withdraw his plea because the plea was involuntary. The trial court denied the motion, finding that it was insufficient and conclusory. The trial court noted that the motion “fails to meet the requirements of rule 3.170(Z) by failing to allege a legally enumerated ground which sets forth any factual basis to support his conclusory allegations.”
*107Mr. Bland’s motion is not conclusory. He alleged that before he entered the negotiated plea, his counsel told a defense ■witness that the State was going to drop one of the cases. Allegedly, counsel withheld this information from Mr. Bland. Mr. Bland asserts that had he known, he would not have entered a plea in exchange for the State nolle-prossing a charge that it had already decided to drop. If true, Mr. Bland may be entitled to relief.
The trial court erred in dismissing the motion as insufficient. We reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing, with appointed conflict-free counsel, on the motion to withdraw the plea. See Smith v. State, 849 So.2d 485, 485-86 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (“An indigent defendant has the right to court-appointed counsel to assist in filing a rule 3.170(Z) motion.”).
Reversed and remanded with directions.
NORTHCUTT and SLEET, JJ., Concur.