NICHOLAS A. SCHOCK
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
Nicholas Schock appeals his judgment and sentences following a no contest plea to felony battery, disorderly conduct, and exposure of sexual organs. The court affirms, rejecting the State's concession of a due process violation regarding the right to conflict-free counsel at the plea withdrawal stage because Schock failed to raise the issue in his briefs despite notice.
While a motion to withdraw a plea constitutes a critical stage requiring conflict-free counsel, Schock waived or abandoned this issue by failing to raise it in his initial or amended briefs, even after being placed on notice by the State's answer brief.
[1] A motion to withdraw a plea pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(l) constitutes a critical stage of criminal proceedings at which a defendant has the righ…
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 in the proceedings”
Establishes that due process requires conflict-free counsel at the plea withdrawal stage, citing Smith v. State
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSchock entered a no contest plea to felony battery, disorderly conduct, and exposure of sexual organs. He subsequently filed a motion to withdraw his …
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 Abandonment Of Issues On Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
VILLANTI, Judge.
Nicholas Arnold Schock appeals his judgment and sentences following a no contest plea to felony battery, disorderly conduct, and exposure of sexual organs. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 4(b)(1), Fla. Const. We affirm the judgment and sentences and write only to explain why we disagree with the State's concession of error.
2
The State concedes that the trial court violated Schock's due process rights by failing to offer to appoint conflict-free counsel after he filed a motion to withdraw plea pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(l) because a motion to withdraw plea is a critical stage in the proceedings. See Smith v. State, 849 So. 2d 485, 485–86 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). However, Schock did not raise this argument in his initial brief. Nor did he raise it in his amended initial brief after being put on notice of the issue in the State's answer brief. See Rosier v. State, 276 So. 3d 403, 407 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019) (citing M.S. v. Dep't of Child. & Fams., 210 So. 3d 147, 152 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)). Because Schock did not address this issue in his briefs, even after having been placed on notice of it, the issue is deemed waived or abandoned. See Menchillo v. State, 350 So. 3d 136, 139 n.1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022). Affirmed.
KHOUZAM and LABRIT, JJ., Concur.
Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Schock v. State, 350 So. 3d 136 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024)…ting M.S. v. Dep't of Child. & Fams., 210 So. 3d 147, 152 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)). Because Schock did not address this issue in his briefs, even after having been placed on notice of it, the issue is deemed waived or abandoned. See Menchillo v. State, 350 So. 3d 136, 139 n.1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022). Affirmed. KHOUZAM and LABRIT, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.…
-
Schock v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2024)…ting M.S. v. Dep't of Child. & Fams., 210 So. 3d 147, 152 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)). Because Schock did not address this issue in his briefs, even after having been placed on notice of it, the issue is deemed waived or abandoned. See Menchillo v. State, 350 So. 3d 136, 139 n.1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022). Affirmed. KHOUZAM and LABRIT, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.…
-
Mesa v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2026)…ctions were sentenced separately from each other. We decline to reach the merits of this argument as it was not raised in the motion below or initial brief, but only addressed in supplemental briefing after the oral argument. See Menchillo v. State, 350 So. 3d 136, 139 n.1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022) (“For an appellant to raise an issue properly on appeal, he must raise it in the initial brief. Otherwise, issues not raised in the initial brief are considered waived or abandoned.” (quoting Rosier v. State, 276 So. 3d 4…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Vermont Smith v. State, 849 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- In the Interest of J.W. v. Dep't of Child. & Families & Guardian Ad Litem Program, 210 So. 3d 147 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)
- Schock v. State, 350 So. 3d 136 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024)