Jones v. State
2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 14044
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Jones, age 16, pled guilty to armed robbery before Judge Bryan on Aug 20, 2009 with appointed counsel Hendrick; no guardian or parent present.
- Before sentencing, Jones moved to withdraw the plea; he drafted pro se motion at the trial court's request.
- Jones argued for conflict-free counsel due to an adversarial position between him and his attorney.
- Trial court directed Jones to draft a written motion; Hendrick did not assist or adopt the motion; court denied the motion.
- Afterward, the relationship between Jones and Hendrick became adversarial; the case raised whether conflict-free counsel should have been appointed under rule 3.170(f).
- The appellate court reversed the conviction and seventeen-year sentence and remanded to vacate the denial of the motion and appoint conflict-free counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was denial of conflict-free counsel at the motion to withdraw plea reversible error? | Jones | Jones lacked conflict-free counsel due to adverse counsel position | Yes; error requiring reversal and remand. |
| Did the trial court abuse discretion by denying a conflict-free attorney and proceeding with pro se motion? | Jones | Hendrick argued no valid grounds and opposed conflict-free counsel | Yes; conflict-free counsel should have been appointed. |
| Does denial of counsel at a critical stage constitute structural error warranting reversal? | Jones | Not specifically addressed | Yes; structural error requiring reversal and remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonzalez-Lopez v. United States, 548 U.S. 140 (2006) (conflict-free counsel principle; right to counsel at critical stages)
- Hampton v. State, 848 So.2d 405 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (indigent defendant entitled to conflict-free counsel for withdrawal plea)
- Sheppard v. State, 17 So.3d 275 (Fla.2009) (court must appoint conflict-free counsel when counsel's position is adverse)
- Grainger v. State, 906 So.2d 380 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (criticizes lack of counsel; not followed in all aspects; supports conflict-free counsel concept)
- Rios v. State, 958 So.2d 1080 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (adversarial counsel requires conflict-free representation)
- Lee v. State, 690 So.2d 664 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (assistance of counsel fundamental to fair trial)
- Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60 (1942) (right to counsel is fundamental and not harmless error)
- Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (1991) (structural defect of denial of counsel affects trial framework)