BROSNAN P. HART
v.
STATE
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 trial court's error in ruling on a pro se motion rather than counsel's substantially identical motion to withdraw guilty pleas is harmless when the motions contain the same arguments and no prejudice results.
[1] A trial court's error in ruling on a pro se criminal motion rather than a substantially identical motion filed by appointed counsel is harmless when the defendant suffers…
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 intelligenceHart filed a pro se motion to withdraw his guilty pleas following sentencing. Hart's appointed counsel subsequently filed a motion on the same issue t…
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.
PER CURIAM. Brosnan Pearson Hart appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion to withdraw his guilty pleas following sentencing, pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(l). Hart argues that the lower court erred by ruling on his pro se motion, rather than the subsequent motion prepared by his appointed counsel. We agree, but affirm because the error was harmless. The pro se motion and the motion prepared by counsel were substantially the same. Hence, Hart was not prejudiced by the trial court’s ruling on the pro se motion. AFFIRMED. COHEN, C.J., ORFINGER and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.