21-3041
Baker appealed the denial of his motion to withdraw plea, arguing the trial court erred by refusing to appoint conflict-free counsel to argue the motion after his public defender disclosed a conflict of interest. The Fifth DCA agreed, reversing because the motion was facially sufficient, an adversarial relationship was evident from counsel's own statements, and the record did not conclusively refute Baker's allegations.
Key facts
- Baker appealed the trial court's denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea after his public defender disclosed a conflict of interest and could not fully argue the motion.
- Baker filed a facially sufficient motion to withdraw plea alleging his counsel had given him conflicted advice, but the trial court refused to appoint conflict-free counsel to argue the motion.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This decision reinforces the rule, drawn from Sheppard and Angeles, that trial courts must appoint conflict-free counsel once a facially sufficient motion to withdraw plea alleges an adversarial relationship with… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.