David Davila v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

David Davila v. State

190 So. 3d 256, 2016 WL 2609637, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 7063

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 6, 2016

Docket5D14-4189

StatusPublished

This text of 190 So. 3d 256 (David Davila 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

David Davila v. State, 190 So. 3d 256, 2016 WL 2609637, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 7063 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

David Davila (“Appellant”) appeals the trial court’s denial of his two pro se motions to withdraw his plea pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(i). Appellant argues, and the State properly concedes,' that the trial court erred by denying Appellant’s motions while he was unrepresented by counsel. See Hampton v. State, 848 So.2d 405, 405 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (“A motion to withdraw plea is a critical stage of a criminal proceeding at which an indigent defendant *257 is entitled to court-appointed counsel.” (citing Padgett v. State, 743 So.2d 70 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999))), When, as here,.^defendant moves to withdraw his plea “on the ground .that he was coerced by his attorney, the trial court must either appoint conflict-free counsel or permit the defendant the opportunity to secure the same, and then conduct an evidentiary hearing on the motion to withdraw the plea.” Cadet v. State, 795 So.2d 228, 229 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (citing Lingenfelser v. State, 734 So.2d 472 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Roberts v. State, 670 So.2d 1042 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)). We reverse and remand for the trial court to appoint conflict-free counsel and hold an evidentia-ry hearing on Appellant’s second motion to withdraw his plea.

REVERSED and REMANDED with INSTRUCTIONS.

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

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

PER CURIAM.

David Davila (“Appellant”) appeals the trial court’s denial of his two pro se motions to withdraw his plea pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(i). Appellant argues, and the State properly concedes,' that the trial court erred by denying Appellant’s motions while he was unrepresented by counsel. See Hampton v. State, 848 So.2d 405, 405 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (“A motion to withdraw plea is a critical stage of a criminal proceeding at which an indigent defendant *257 is entitled to court-appointed counsel.” (citing Padgett v. State, 743 So.2d 70 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999))), When, as here,.^defendant moves to withdraw his plea “on the ground .that he was coerced by his attorney, the trial court must either appoint conflict-free counsel or permit the defendant the opportunity to secure the same, and then conduct an evidentiary hearing on the motion to withdraw the plea.” Cadet v. State, 795 So.2d 228, 229 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (citing Lingenfelser v. State, 734 So.2d 472 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Roberts v. State, 670 So.2d 1042 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)). We reverse and remand for the trial court to appoint conflict-free counsel and hold an evidentia-ry hearing on Appellant’s second motion to withdraw his plea.

REVERSED and REMANDED with INSTRUCTIONS.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 So. 3d 256, 2016 WL 2609637, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 7063, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/david-davila-v-state-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack