Baker v. State
Baker appealed the denial of his motion to withdraw plea after sentencing, arguing the trial court erred by failing to appoint conflict-free counsel to argue the motion when his own public defender had an admitted conflict. The Fifth DCA agreed, holding the motion was facially sufficient and the record showed an adversarial relationship between Baker and the public defender's office, requiring appointment of conflict-free counsel. The court reversed and remanded.
Key facts
- Baker appealed the trial court's denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea after sentencing.
- Baker's public defender notified the court that it had a conflict of interest and could not fully argue the withdrawal motion on Baker's behalf.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This decision reinforces the bright-line rule that once defense counsel alerts the court to an actual conflict in arguing a motion to withdraw plea, the trial court must appoint conflict-free counsel rather than rule on… — 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.