Baker v. State
The Fifth DCA reversed the denial of Baker's motion to withdraw his plea because the trial court failed to appoint conflict-free counsel to argue the motion, despite defense counsel's express statement that a conflict existed between himself and Baker. The court held the motion was facially sufficient and the record did not conclusively refute Baker's claim that counsel misadvised him regarding his plea decision.
Key facts
- Baker filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, alleging that his defense counsel had misadvised him regarding sentencing exposure and strategy.
- The trial court denied Baker's motion to withdraw the plea without appointing conflict-free counsel, despite counsel's express statement that a conflict of interest existed between himself and Baker.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This decision reinforces that trial courts must appoint conflict-free counsel whenever defense counsel identifies an adversarial relationship in a motion to withdraw plea alleging misadvice, even if the motion lacks… — 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.