AKEEM R. WELCH v. STATE OF FLORIDA

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedDecember 15, 2023
Docket22-3991
StatusPublished

This text of AKEEM R. WELCH v. STATE OF FLORIDA (AKEEM R. WELCH v. STATE OF FLORIDA) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
AKEEM R. WELCH v. STATE OF FLORIDA, (Fla. Ct. App. 2023).

Opinion

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

AKEEM R. WELCH,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 2D22-3991

December 15, 2023

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Kimberly K. Fernandez, Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and William L. Sharwell, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Alicia M. Winterkorn, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

VILLANTI, Judge. Akeem R. Welch appeals an order denying his motion to withdraw plea after sentencing filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(l). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 4(b)(1), Fla. Const. We agree with the State's concession of error and reverse. In November of 2020, Welch filed a motion to correct illegal sentence pursuant to rule 3.800(a). We reversed the denial of his claim in ground one that the trial court illegally imposed one of his HFO sentences. See Welch v. State, 337 So. 3d 517, 518 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022). After the trial court resentenced Welch, he timely filed a motion to withdraw plea after sentencing pursuant to rule 3.170(l). The court summarily denied the motion without appointing counsel for Welch. A rule 3.170(l) motion to withdraw plea is a critical stage of the proceedings during which an indigent defendant is entitled to court- appointed, conflict-free counsel. See Smith v. State, 849 So. 2d 485, 485- 86 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); see also Lester v. State, 820 So. 2d 1078, 1078 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) ("[O]nce a defendant indicates his desire to avail himself of the rule 3.170(l) procedure, the trial court must appoint conflict-free counsel to advise and assist the defendant in this regard."). This error is not subject to harmless error analysis. See Smith, 849 So. 2d at 486. Welch argues and the State concedes that the trial court erred by summarily denying his rule 3.170(l) motion without appointing counsel. Accordingly, we reverse the order denying the motion and direct the trial court to appoint conflict-free counsel to advise and assist Welch with the motion. Reversed and remanded. CASANUEVA and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Smith v. State
849 So. 2d 485 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2003)
Lester v. State
820 So. 2d 1078 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
AKEEM R. WELCH v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/akeem-r-welch-v-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2023.