From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smith v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Jan 31, 2003
835 So. 2d 1259 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

Summary

In Smith v. State, 835 So.2d 1259 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) and Karg v. State, 706 So.2d 124 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), the conflicts between attorney and client were patent.

Summary of this case from Carmona v. State

Opinion

Case No. 2D01-5279.

Opinion filed January 31, 2003.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Charlotte County; Donald E. Pellecchia, Judge.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, Bartow, and A. Victoria Wiggins, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Charlie Crist, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and William I. Munsey, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.


Donald Smith challenges the trial court's denial of his motion to withdraw plea. Although an apparent conflict developed between Smith and his trial counsel at the hearing on the motion, the trial court failed to offer Smith the assistance of a separate attorney. We reverse.

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 plea.

Holifield v. State, 717 So.2d 69, 69 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (emphasis added).

Once the conflict became apparent, Smith was without representation.See Padgett v. State, 743 So.2d 70, 73 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) ([A]s the hearing unfolded, Padgett was for all intents and purposes unrepresented. Once it became clear at the hearing that appellant and his counsel had indeed taken adversarial positions . . . appellant was entitled to the appointment of conflict-free counsel.").

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new evidentiary hearing with instructions for the trial court to appoint conflict-free counsel.

Reversed and remanded.

NORTHCUTT, J., and THREADGILL, EDWARD F., SENIOR JUDGE, Concur.


Summaries of

Smith v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Jan 31, 2003
835 So. 2d 1259 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

In Smith v. State, 835 So.2d 1259 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) and Karg v. State, 706 So.2d 124 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), the conflicts between attorney and client were patent.

Summary of this case from Carmona v. State
Case details for

Smith v. State

Case Details

Full title:DONALD HARVEY SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Jan 31, 2003

Citations

835 So. 2d 1259 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

Citing Cases

Gunn v. State

We agree. Once a conflict becomes apparent between the defendant and defense counsel during a hearing on the…

Carmona v. State

Appellant also relies upon four other cases, all of which are distinguishable. In Smith v. State, 835 So.2d…