Hart v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hart v. State

251 So. 3d 353

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Hart v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 2476 →

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided August 24, 2018·No. Case No. 5D17-3542·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

*354Brosnan Pearson Hart appeals the trial court's order denying his motion to withdraw his guilty pleas following sentencing, pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(l ). Hart argues that the lower court erred by ruling on his pro se motion, rather than the subsequent motion prepared by his appointed counsel. We agree, but affirm because the error was harmless. The pro se motion and the motion prepared by counsel were substantially the same. Hence, Hart was not prejudiced by the trial court's ruling on the pro se motion.

AFFIRMED.

COHEN, C.J., ORFINGER and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

*354Brosnan Pearson Hart appeals the trial court's order denying his motion to withdraw his guilty pleas following sentencing, pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(l ). Hart argues that the lower court erred by ruling on his pro se motion, rather than the subsequent motion prepared by his appointed counsel. We agree, but affirm because the error was harmless. The pro se motion and the motion prepared by counsel were substantially the same. Hence, Hart was not prejudiced by the trial court's ruling on the pro se motion.

AFFIRMED.

COHEN, C.J., ORFINGER and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.

Hart v. State, 251 So. 3d 353 (Fla. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

251 So. 3d 353 (Hart v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.