Lester v. State

Roderick R. LESTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided July 16, 2002.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2002-07-16

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently November 2009

13 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“This Court has consistently held that, `once a defendant indicates his desire to avail himself of the [Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure] 3.170( l ) procedure, the trial court must appoint conflict-free counsel to advise and assist the defendant in this regard.'”

quoted by 5 later decisions, including Mullins v. State, Smith v. State

“challenges the summary denial of his ... motion to withdraw a plea pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170( l ).”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including Miller v. State, Young v. State

Relies on 819 So. 2d 891 - Wofford v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2002-07-16

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender; Joel Arnold, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

¶2Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General; Janelle C. Gillaspie, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4Roderick Lester challenges the summary denial of his timely motion to withdraw a plea pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(l). This Court has recently held that, once a defendant indicates his desire to avail himself of the rule 3.170(l) procedure, the trial court must appoint conflict-free counsel to advise and assist the defendant in this regard. Wofford v. State,819 So.2d 891 (Fla. 1st DCA, 2002). Accordingly, we reverse the order denying the motion to withdraw the plea and remand to effectuate Lester's right to counsel.

¶5REVERSED and REMANDED.

¶6ALLEN, C.J., BROWNING and LEWIS, JJ., concur.