Baker v. State
Baker, represented by the public defender, entered an open plea and received a harsher sentence than the State had offered; his counsel then moved to withdraw the plea alleging misadvice but also sought appointment of conflict-free counsel due to the adversarial posture. The trial court denied both the motion and the request for conflict-free counsel, relying on its own plea colloquy. The Fifth DCA reversed, holding the motion was facially sufficient and the record did not conclusively refute it, so conflict-free counsel should have been appointed.
Key facts
- Baker, represented by a public defender, entered an open plea and received a sentence harsher than the State's plea offer.
- Baker moved to withdraw his plea, alleging his counsel misadvised him, and requested appointment of conflict-free counsel due to the adversarial relationship with his current counsel.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This decision reinforces and applies the Sheppard/Angeles line of authority requiring appointment of conflict-free counsel whenever a motion to withdraw plea alleges an adversarial relationship not conclusively refuted… — 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.