ANTONIO JONES v. STATE OF FLORIDA
230 So. 3d 20
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Antonio Jones pleaded guilty to burglary with a firearm, robbery with a firearm (PRR sentences of 15 years concurrent), and felon in possession (three-year mandatory concurrent).
- Within 30 days after sentencing Jones filed a motion to withdraw his plea, alleging (1) counsel coerced him and his family into pleading by threatening a life sentence, and (2) counsel failed to inform him of favorable evidence (DNA from the gun did not match him).
- The trial court denied a hearing on the coercion claim based on the plea colloquy, but granted an evidentiary hearing on the ineffective-assistance/misadvice and DNA-notification claim.
- Jones requested court-appointed counsel for the evidentiary hearing; the trial court denied appointment, treating the proceeding as discretionary and finding the issues not complex.
- The court held the evidentiary hearing without appointed counsel and denied the motion to withdraw. Jones appealed, arguing the denial of appointed counsel violated his Sixth Amendment right.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Rule 3.170(l) motion to withdraw a plea is a critical stage requiring appointment of counsel | Jones: motion to withdraw plea is a critical stage; denial of appointed counsel violated Sixth Amendment | State/Trial Ct: appointment was discretionary for this postconviction-type proceeding; issues were not complex | Court: Motion to withdraw under Rule 3.170(l) is a critical stage; denial of counsel was fundamental error — reverse and remand for new hearing with conflict-free counsel appointed |
| Whether an adversarial relationship existed requiring substitution or appointment of conflict-free counsel (per Sheppard) | Jones: alleged misadvice/coercion created adversarial relationship; allegations not conclusively refuted | State: (implicitly) no substitution needed; record (plea colloquy) refuted coercion; issues limited | Court: Sheppard procedure not followed; adversarial relationship was apparent and allegations were not conclusively refuted — court should have appointed conflict-free counsel |
Key Cases Cited
- Padgett v. State, 743 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (motion to withdraw plea is a critical stage entitling defendant to counsel)
- Sheppard v. State, 17 So. 3d 275 (Fla. 2009) (procedure when pro se motion alleges counsel misadvice or creates an adversarial relationship)
- Mosley v. State, 932 So. 2d 1239 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (defendant entitled to counsel for Rule 3.170(l) motion)
- Bienaime v. State, 971 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (same)
- Schriber v. State, 959 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (same)
- Kelly v. State, 925 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (same)