959 So. 2d 830 - Williams v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “At the Fourth District, we are seeing more and more cases where the defen dant files a motion to withdraw a plea after sentencing occurs, vaguely indicating coercion by counsel or misrepresentation as to the sentence, even though these matters were fully reviewed at sentencing. Because of this conflict with counsel, new counsel must be appointed, increasing the cost of the proceedings. However, these motions are routinely denied after an evidentiary hearing, because there was no coercion or misrepresentation and the plea colloquy fully explored these issues. We have even received pro se motions claiming ineffective assistance of counsel, because the defendant has learned in prison that he had the “right” to move to withdraw his plea within thirty days of sentencing, and his lawyer did not inform him of this “right.” As far as I can tell, many defendants are abusing the use of rule 3.170(l).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 17 So. 3d 275 - Sheppard v. State · 988 So. 2d 74 - Sheppard v. State

2. “a motion to withdraw the plea after sentencing is not a critical stage of the proceedings, as the defendant has already pled and been sentenced. Therefore, the "proceedings" are in fact at an end with sentencing. Rule 3.170( l ) is a collateral, judicially-created proceeding which is not essential to due process. . . . It has proved costly with little, if any, benefit.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Nelson v. State