Blue v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Blue v. State

135 So. 3d 383, 2014 WL 338733, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 1137

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 31, 2014

DocketNo. 5D13-1104

StatusPublished

This text of 135 So. 3d 383 (Blue 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

Blue v. State, 135 So. 3d 383, 2014 WL 338733, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 1137 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Harold Blue appeals his judgment and sentence imposed after he entered a plea admitting to a violation of probation in his possession of cocaine case, resulting in a thirty-six-month prison sentence. After sentencing, Blue timely filed a pro se motion to withdraw plea (based upon allegations relating to his appointed counsel) pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(7). The trial court denied the motion after a hearing at which the prosecutor appeared but at which Blue was not offered conflict-free counsel. The State requests that we relinquish jurisdiction for a new hearing after the appointment of conflict-free counsel. We decline the State’s request and instead reverse the denial order and remand for a new hearing after Blue is offered conflict-free counsel. See, e.g., Rouse v. State, 990 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008).

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO WITHDRAW PLEA REVERSED; REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS ON MOTION.

TORPY, C.J., SAWAYA and LAWSON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Harold Blue appeals his judgment and sentence imposed after he entered a plea admitting to a violation of probation in his possession of cocaine case, resulting in a thirty-six-month prison sentence. After sentencing, Blue timely filed a pro se motion to withdraw plea (based upon allegations relating to his appointed counsel) pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(7). The trial court denied the motion after a hearing at which the prosecutor appeared but at which Blue was not offered conflict-free counsel. The State requests that we relinquish jurisdiction for a new hearing after the appointment of conflict-free counsel. We decline the State’s request and instead reverse the denial order and remand for a new hearing after Blue is offered conflict-free counsel. See, e.g., Rouse v. State, 990 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008).

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO WITHDRAW PLEA REVERSED; REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS ON MOTION.

TORPY, C.J., SAWAYA and LAWSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

135 So. 3d 383, 2014 WL 338733, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 1137, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blue-v-state-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack