ROBERT RIVERA, 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.
Robert Rivera appealed his fifteen-year sentence imposed following a guilty plea, claiming his attorney coerced him into pleading guilty without adequate explanation and that he did not understand the consequences. The trial court improperly struck his pro se motions without holding an evidentiary hearing, and the appellate court reversed and remanded for such a hearing with conflict-free counsel appointed.
The trial court erred in striking Rivera's motions without an evidentiary hearing. The appellate court reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing to be conducted with conflict-free counsel appointed to represent Rivera, as the allegations regarding counsel's misrepresentation and the voluntariness of the plea are not conclusively rebutted by the record.
“The allegations as to appellant's counsel's misrepresentation and the voluntariness of the plea are not conclusively rebutted by the record.”
Establishes that when serious allegations of attorney misconduct and involuntary plea are made and not definitively refuted by the record, an evidentiary hearing is required.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRivera received a fifteen-year sentence based on a guilty plea. He moved to withdraw the plea, alleging he did not understand the consequences and lac…
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 Competency Of Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
After receiving a fifteen year sentence based on a guilty plea, appellant moved to withdraw his plea and asserted that he did not understand the consequences of the plea and did not have adequate time to consult with his attorney. The trial court struck the motiqn because appellant was still represented by his trial counsel.
Appellant then filed a pro se motion to correct sentencing error, in which he asserted that his attorney was not competent; the attorney did not explain what appellant was signing; he was scared into signing by his attorney; his attorney told him he would get thirty years if he did not sign; and that he was sentenced outside the guidelines. He reiterated that he wanted to withdraw his plea. That motion was also stricken. Given the allegations, this was error. Bermudez v. State, 901 So. 2d 981 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Appellant then filed a motion to discharge his attorney, which the trial court granted.
We reverse for an evidentiary hearing, with conflict-free counsel to be appointed to represent appellant. The allegations as to appellant’s counsel’s misrepresentation and the voluntariness of the plea are not conclusively rebutted by the record. Woodly v. State, 937 So. 2d 193, 196 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). A request to withdraw within thirty days of sentencing is a critical stage of a criminal proceeding. Kelly v. State, 925 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006).
Reversed.
STEVENSON, C.J., KLEIN and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. State, 959 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…hout prejudice to Williams filing a pro se motion to withdraw plea, hire counsel to file an amended motion, or request the trial court appoint a special public defender to file such motion. Given the allegations, this was error. See Rivera v. State, 954 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (citation omitted); see also Mattia v. State, 907 So. 2d 683, 683 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (“A motion to withdraw plea filed pursuant to rule 3.170 is a critical stage of the proceedings in the trial court, and a defendant is entitled…
Authorities Cited
- Woodly v. State, 937 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- Bermudez v. State, 901 So. 2d 981 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
- Kelly v. State, 925 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)