Bland v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bland v. State

210 So. 3d 106, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 13526

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 9, 2016

Docket2D15-2757

StatusPublished

This text of 210 So. 3d 106 (Bland v. State) 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

Bland v. State, 210 So. 3d 106, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 13526 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

LaROSE, Judge.

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.”

*107 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. 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.

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

LaROSE, Judge.

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.”

*107 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. 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 So. 3d 106, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 13526, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bland-v-state-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack