Benjamin v. State
230 So. 3d 953
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Benjamin was charged with second-degree murder (life felony) and felonious possession of a firearm; statutory exposure on murder charge made the low end of the guidelines 45 years.
- State amended the information in exchange for guilty pleas to manslaughter (with agreed 25-year sentence) and felonious possession (15 years concurrent, with a 10-year minimum mandatory).
- Court accepted the pleas and continued sentencing two weeks to allow the victim's family to attend.
- At the start of sentencing Benjamin, through counsel, orally sought to withdraw his plea; counsel characterized it as "buyer’s remorse" and said Benjamin did not have his discovery.
- The trial court denied the oral motion without inquiring further or holding an evidentiary hearing and proceeded to sentence Benjamin.
- Benjamin appealed, arguing the court erred in denying the pre-sentence motion to withdraw the plea without adequate inquiry or an evidentiary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Benjamin's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in denying a pre-sentence motion to withdraw plea without inquiry or hearing | Court should have allowed withdrawal or at least held a hearing to develop facts; denial was premature | Court acted within discretion to deny oral motion and proceed to sentencing | Reversed: trial court must conduct a hearing on the motion to withdraw before sentencing |
| Whether counsel’s “buyer’s remorse” remark created a potential conflict or required inquiry | The remark suggested counsel-adversary conflict and undermined adequate representation; court should have probed | Implied that remark did not necessitate providing conflict-free counsel before ruling | Court faulted for not inquiring into possible conflict and failing to provide opportunity for conflict-free counsel |
| Whether lack of possession/review of discovery alone can justify withdrawal pre-sentence | Benjamin claimed absence of discovery review could show good cause to withdraw | State relied on discretion and on precedents finding mere failure to read discovery not necessarily good cause | Court concluded the trial court should have allowed explanation and argument on how discovery supported withdrawal and thus erred by denying without inquiry |
| Procedural requirement under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.170(f) for pre-sentence withdrawal motions | Rule requires denial only for facial insufficiency or else an evidentiary hearing to develop facts | Trial court summarily denied without following Lee v. State standard | Court remanded for hearing consistent with rule and precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- Lee v. State, 875 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (pre-sentence withdrawal motion must be denied for facial insufficiency or an evidentiary hearing must be granted)
- Grainger v. State, 906 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (counsel’s adverse "buyer’s remorse" comment can indicate failure to represent and create conflict requiring inquiry)
- Sheppard v. State, 17 So. 3d 275 (Fla. 2009) (disapproving Grainger in part on other grounds)
- Jones v. State, 74 So. 3d 118 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (defense counsel’s skepticism of a defendant’s basis to withdraw can render the relationship adversarial and warrants inquiry)
- Clark v. State, 112 So. 3d 680 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (pro se change-of-heart assertion may be facially insufficient to show good cause)
- Shores v. State, 152 So. 3d 93 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (failure to read discovery after plea can be insufficient to show good cause in some circumstances)
- Morales v. State, 973 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (defendant must be given opportunity to present argument on motion to withdraw)
- Lehmkuhle v. State, 20 So. 3d 971 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (trial court should allow defendant to be heard before ruling on withdrawal motion)