Baker v. State
Baker appealed the denial of his post-sentencing motion to withdraw plea, arguing the trial court erred by refusing to appoint conflict-free counsel before ruling on the motion. The Fifth DCA agreed, holding that the motion was facially sufficient and the record showed an adversarial relationship between Baker and the public defender's office that was not conclusively refuted. The court reversed and remanded for appointment of conflict-free counsel.
Key facts
- Baker appealed the trial court's denial of his post-sentencing motion to withdraw his guilty plea after the court refused to appoint conflict-free counsel to represent him at the hearing.
- Baker argued he had an adversarial relationship with his public defender and filed a facially sufficient motion claiming the public defender could not adequately represent him due to a conflict of interest.
- +2 more key facts with a free 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.