Castro v. State

201 So. 3d 77, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 13062

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: September 2, 2015
• Docket: 15-0929
• Status: Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Martin Castro appeals the trial court’s order of probation and order withholding adjudication entered on April 1, 2015. We dismiss the appeal, without prejudice, with instructions to the trial court to treat Castro’s pro se “Motion to Appeal Final Decision” as a timely filed motion to withdraw the plea after sentencing pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(7).

On April 1, 2015, Castro pled guilty to one count of battery. Three weeks after his plea, on April 22, 2015, Castro filed a pro se motion titled “Motion to Appeal Final Decision.” Although titled an appeal, Castro actually sought to withdraw his previously entered guilty plea.

Pleadings by pro se litigants should only be defined by their function. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972). Specifically, Florida courts emphasize substance over form. IndyMac Fed. Bank FSB v. Hagan, 104 So.3d 1232, 1236 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012). In essence, if the pleading is incorrectly labeled, this Court will focus on the substance of the pleading and not its title. Id,

In substance, Castro’s motion intended to withdraw his guilty plea entered on April 1, 2015. The motion was filed twenty-one days after his plea, well within the thirty day window prescribed by rule 3.170(i). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal and remand with instructions for the trial court to treat Castro’s motion as a timely filed motion to withdraw the plea after sentencing, pursuant to rule 3.170(i) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. 1

Appeal dismissed; remanded for proceedings consistent herewith.

1 . We express no opinion on the merits of Castro's motion.