Florida District Courts of Appeal, 2009

Grier v. State

Grier v. State
Florida District Courts of Appeal · Decided July 8, 2009 · Barfield, Padovano, Lewis
14 So. 3d 252; 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 9165; 2009 WL 1940754 (Southern Reporter, Third Series)

Grier v. State

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Levinston E. Grier appeals the summary denials of his motion to withdraw his plea and motion for conflict-free counsel. Grier argues that the trial court reversibly erred by failing to appoint conflict-free counsel upon his pro se post-sentence motion to withdraw his plea pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(i). This Court has consistently held that trial courts must appoint conflict-free counsel once a defendant indicates his desire to avail himself of the rule 3.170G) procedure. Lester v. State, 820 So.2d 1078, 1078 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); see also Norman v. State, 897 So.2d 553, 553 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); Mosley v. State, 932 So.2d 1239, 1239 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); Mullins v. State, 981 So.2d 1281, 1282 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). Accordingly, the trial court was required to appoint conflict-free counsel upon Grier’s facially sufficient and timely filed rule 3.170(0 motion. Therefore, we reverse the trial court’s order denying Grier’s motions to withdraw the plea and for conflict-free counsel. Upon remand, conflict-free counsel shall be appointed to assist Grier in this cause.

REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions.

BARFIELD, PADOVANO, and LEWIS, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.