21-3046
Baker appealed the denial of his post-sentencing motion to withdraw plea, arguing the trial court erred by failing to appoint conflict-free counsel to argue the motion after his public defender disclosed an adversarial relationship. The Fifth DCA agreed, reversing and remanding because the motion was facially sufficient, an adversarial relationship was established, and the record did not conclusively refute Baker's claims.
Key facts
- Baker appealed the trial court's denial of his post-sentencing motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
- Baker's public defender disclosed an adversarial relationship and stated he could not fully argue the motion due to a conflict of interest.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This opinion reinforces and applies the well-established rule from Sheppard and its progeny that trial courts must appoint conflict-free counsel once an adversarial relationship is shown in a motion to withdraw plea… — 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.