Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

939 So. 2d 1196

Docket Nos. 2D05-3636, 2D05-3639.

King v. State

Anthony KING, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided October 25, 2006.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2006-10-25

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently August 2009

4 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“Consideration of a motion to withdraw plea after sentencing, which is filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170( l ), is a critical stage in the proceeding, and an indigent criminal defendant has a right to the appointment of conflict-free counsel to assist in the filing of the motion.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 988 So. 2d 74 - Sheppard v. State

“[a] rule 3.170( l ) motion to withdraw plea filed by a criminal defendant who is represented by counsel is a nullity, unless the defendant makes an unequivocal request to discharge counsel.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 988 So. 2d 74 - Sheppard v. State

Relies on Mourra v. State · Johnson v. State · 906 So. 2d 380 - Grainger v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2006-10-25

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and John C. Fisher, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

¶2Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Susan M. Shanahan, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

¶3SILBERMAN, Judge.

¶4Anthony King challenges the denial of his motions to withdraw plea after sentencing for petit theft (case number 04-CF-22722) and driving while license revoked (habitual offender) (case number 04-CF-22907). Pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(l ), King filed a pro se motion to withdraw his plea in each case. A rule 3.170(l) motion to withdraw plea filed by a criminal defendant who is represented by counsel is a nullity, unless the defendant makes an unequivocal request to discharge counsel. Johnson v. State,932 So.2d 1169, 1170 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Grainger v. State,906 So.2d 380, 382 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Mourra v. State,884 So.2d 316, 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). King made no request to discharge his counsel, and nothing in the record reflects that counsel had been discharged. Thus, the trial court should have treated each motion as a nullity and stricken the motions. Therefore, we reverse the denial of the motions to withdraw plea and remand for the trial court to strike the pro se motions. See Johnson,932 So.2d at 1170; Grainger,906 So.2d at 383.

¶5Reversed and remanded with directions.

¶6KELLY and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.

/939/so2d/1196 · .json · Public domain