Smith v. State
Citation | 845 So.2d 937 |
Decision Date | 25 April 2003 |
Docket Number | No. 5D02-1546.,5D02-1546. |
Parties | Michael F. SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and James R. Wulchak, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Lamya A. Henry, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
The appellant, Michael F. Smith, appeals from the denial of his motion to withdraw plea, arguing that he was entitled to conflict-free counsel to represent him during the hearing on his motion. We agree and reverse.
Smith pled no contest to a violation of probation,1 and was sentenced to sixty months incarceration. He later filed a motion to withdraw plea alleging that "he did not have enough time to discuss his options and alternatives with counsel."
At the motion hearing Smith was represented by the attorney who had previously represented him at his violation of probation hearing. Smith's attorney suggested to the court that it was Smith who wanted to file the motion. The attorney then offered his opinion concerning conversations between himself and Smith as follows:
Smith testified to the trial court that he did not understand the severity of his case or the harshness of his sentence. Without any prompting, the attorney interrupted Smith and told the court that he had explained everything concerning the plea to Smith.
The trial court denied Smith's motion to withdraw plea, ruling that Smith knew the possible penalties based on a prior plea offer that had been made, and that Smith was simply unhappy with his sentence. The court went further, however, saying that it also based its decision on the commentary of Smith's attorney, stating, "your own lawyer basically told us he explained everything to you at that point." Smith brings this appeal asserting that he is entitled to a new hearing with conflict-free counsel.
It is well established that a criminal defendant facing incarceration has the right to counsel at each critical stage of the proceedings. See Coleman v. Alabama, 399 U.S. 1, 90 S.Ct. 1999, 26 L.Ed.2d 387 (1970); Jones v. State, 827 So.2d 1086 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Padgett v. State, 743 So.2d 70, 72 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Once a conflict of interest arises between the defendant and his counsel, the preferred course to follow 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." See ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Carmona v. State, 5D03-229.
...counsel to represent him during the hearing on his motion. The State confesses error based on our recent decision in Smith v. State, 845 So.2d 937 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). Notwithstanding the State's confession, because we believe the parties misapprehend our decision in Smith, we Immediately p......
-
Gonzales v. State
...instructions to prepare and file a motion to withdraw Gonzales' pleas. In making this argument, Gonzales cites to Smith v. State, 845 So.2d 937 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003), in which we held that when a conflict of interest between a defendant and his counsel "appears in the record, the trial court ......
-
Dickerson v. State
...crucial stage of the proceedings whether he or she requires the assistance of counsel."3 596 So.2d at 968 ; see also Smith v. State, 845 So.2d 937, 938 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) ("[A] criminal defendant facing incarceration has the right to counsel at each critical stage of the proceedings."). Wh......
-
Angeles v. State
...information set forth a facially sufficient claim. See Rouse v. State, 990 So. 2d 1197, 1198 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) ; Smith v. State, 845 So. 2d 937, 938 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).The allegations that counsel performed deficiently in failing to properly advise Angeles during the plea process also es......