Home/District Court of Appeal of Florida/Holifield v. State

Holifield v. State

717 So. 2d 69, 1998 WL 377751
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJuly 9, 1998
Docket97-2882
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 717 So. 2d 69 (Holifield 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
Holifield v. State, 717 So. 2d 69, 1998 WL 377751 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

717 So.2d 69 (1998)

Wadie Michael HOLIFIELD,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 97-2882.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 9, 1998.
Rehearing Denied September 11, 1998.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, David P. Gauldin, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Stephen R. White, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Holifield's allegation in his motion to withdraw plea that he was under duress caused by defense counsel when he entered his plea created a conflict of interest between Holifield and his attorney. Defense counsel was thereby placed in the position of having to respond to allegations against her. This is precisely the type of adversarial situation Roberts v. State, 670 So.2d 1042 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), addresses. See also Brye v. State, 702 So.2d 256 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Lopez v. State, 688 So.2d 948 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Hope v. State, 682 So.2d 1173 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). This is not a motion based solely on allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel, as in Cunningham v. State, 677 So.2d 929 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).

The preferred course to follow once a defendant files a motion to withdraw plea alleging misrepresentation, coercion or duress by defense counsel, or once a conflict of interest arises between the defendant and defense counsel at the motion hearing is for the trial court to appoint or allow the defendant to retain independent counsel solely for the purpose of representation on the motion to withdraw the plea.

REVERSED and REMANDED with directions to appoint conflict-free counsel to represent appellant in further proceedings.

ERVIN and WEBSTER, JJ., and SMITH, LARRY G., Senior Judge, concur.

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

Related

Carter v. State
22 So. 3d 793 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2009)
Martin v. State
16 So. 3d 1056 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2009)
Tuhey v. State
972 So. 2d 1029 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2008)
Smith v. State
845 So. 2d 937 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2003)
Thomas v. State
812 So. 2d 607 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)
Lewis v. State
812 So. 2d 597 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)
Cadet v. State
795 So. 2d 228 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)
James v. State
773 So. 2d 659 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2000)
Zeiszler v. State
765 So. 2d 128 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2000)
George v. State
753 So. 2d 678 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2000)
Lingenfelser v. State
734 So. 2d 472 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1999)
State v. E.D.P.
724 So. 2d 1144 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
717 So. 2d 69, 1998 WL 377751, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holifield-v-state-fladistctapp-1998.