Gianni Passino v. State of Florida, 174 So. 3d 1055

Defendant pleaded guilty to violating probation based on new offenses (lewd/molestation-related counts) and was originally sentenced to 20 years on each relevant count.
A subsequent rule 3.800(b) motion established the original sentences exceeded statutory maximums; court vacated them and later resentenced defendant to 15 years (counts II & III) and 5 years (count V).
Within 30 days of the resentencing, and now pro se, defendant filed a written motion to withdraw his plea, seeking counsel and claiming he did not understand his plea encompassed substantive offenses (failure to register and obstructing) that affected youthful-offender status.
The State argued the motion was untimely and refuted by the record; the trial court summarily denied the pro se post-sentencing motion. The court had earlier ignored an oral pre-sentence pro se withdrawal request made while defendant was represented.
The appellate court affirmed denial of the pre-sentence oral motion (because it was made while represented by counsel and lacked factual allegations) but reversed the summary denial of the post-resentencing pro se written motion and remanded for further proceedings with appointment of counsel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of pro se post-resentencing motion to withdraw plea	Motion untimely and barred by record	Motion filed within 30 days of resentencing; resentencing is rendition of a new sentence	Timely — rule 3.170(f) 30-day clock restarts at resentencing (motion timely)
Right to appointed counsel for a post-sentencing rule 3.170(f) motion	No appointment necessary; State relied on record	3.170(f) withdrawal is a critical stage, defendant entitled to counsel to pursue motion	Trial court erred by not appointing counsel before considering the pro se motion
Sufficiency of record to conclusively refute defendant’s factual assertions	Record conclusively refutes claims; summary denial appropriate	Allegations that plea did not include substantive violations not conclusively refuted by record	Record does not conclusively refute defendant’s allegations; summary denial improper
Validity of pre-sentence oral withdrawal made while represented	Motion made while represented and lacked factual grounds; nullity	Defendant attempted to withdraw plea orally immediately before sentencing; should have been heard	Affirmed denial of pre-sentence oral motion (no adversarial conflict alleged); concurrence would reverse for failure to hear motion

Ruiz v. State, 109 So.3d 1183 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (affirming denial of pro se post-sentencing withdrawal when motion made while represented and lacked adversarial conflict)
Sheppard v. State, 17 So.3d 275 (Fla. 2009) (discussing pro se withdrawal motions and counsel conflict requirements)
Gunn v. State, 643 So.2d 677 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (trial court must allow defendant opportunity to argue oral pre-sentence withdrawal motion)
Fox v. State, 166 So.3d 894 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (resentencing is a new proceeding; rendition of a new sentence restarts timing for post-sentence relief)
Stephens v. State, 141 So.3d 701 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (rule 3.170(f) withdrawal is a critical stage entitling defendant to counsel)
West v. State, 129 So.3d 1155 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (youthful-offender six-year cap lost on substantive probation violation premised on commission of a separate criminal act)
State v. Meeks, 789 So.2d 982 (Fla. 2001) (defining "substantive violation" as based on commission of a separate criminal act)
St. Cyr v. State, 106 So.3d 487 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (noting defendant need not be convicted of the substantive offense to lose youthful-offender benefit)