Bullard v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bullard v. State

837 So. 2d 1125, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 1835, 2003 WL 355248

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 19, 2003

DocketNo. 4D02-809

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 837 So. 2d 1125 (Bullard 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

Bullard v. State, 837 So. 2d 1125, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 1835, 2003 WL 355248 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant entered an open plea of no contest to the charge of robbery with a deadly weapon. He was sentenced on February 12, 2002. Four days later he filed a motion to withdraw his plea. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.170(i). The motion contained a factually-based claim that his lawyer coerced him into entering the plea. At the hearing on the motion, the lawyer disputed appellant’s contention that he had coerced his client. We reverse and remand for the trial court to appoint conflict-free counsel to represent appellant for his Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.170(Z) motion and to hold a new evidentiary hearing on the motion. See Cadet v. State, 795 So.2d 228, 229 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Padgett v. State, 743 So.2d 70, 73-74 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Hope v. State, 682 So.2d 1173, 1174 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Roberts v. State, 670 So.2d 1042, 1045-46 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Jones v. State, 827 So.2d 1086, 1087 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Bible v. State, 779 So.2d 517 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); George v. State, 753 So.2d 678 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

STONE, SHAHOOD and GROSS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant entered an open plea of no contest to the charge of robbery with a deadly weapon. He was sentenced on February 12, 2002. Four days later he filed a motion to withdraw his plea. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.170(i). The motion contained a factually-based claim that his lawyer coerced him into entering the plea. At the hearing on the motion, the lawyer disputed appellant’s contention that he had coerced his client. We reverse and remand for the trial court to appoint conflict-free counsel to represent appellant for his Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.170(Z) motion and to hold a new evidentiary hearing on the motion. See Cadet v. State, 795 So.2d 228, 229 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Padgett v. State, 743 So.2d 70, 73-74 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Hope v. State, 682 So.2d 1173, 1174 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Roberts v. State, 670 So.2d 1042, 1045-46 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Jones v. State, 827 So.2d 1086, 1087 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Bible v. State, 779 So.2d 517 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); George v. State, 753 So.2d 678 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

STONE, SHAHOOD and GROSS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

837 So. 2d 1125, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 1835, 2003 WL 355248, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bullard-v-state-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack