Summary
affirming denial of pro se rule 3.170( l ) motion; motion was a nullity since it was made while defendant was represented by counsel and “devoid of allegations giving rise to an adversarial relationship with counsel” (citing Sheppard v. State, 17 So.3d 275, 286 (Fla.2009))
Summary of this case from Passino v. StateOpinion
No. 2D12–1040.
2013-03-22
Gregorio RUIZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Collier County; Frederick R. Hardt, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Judith Ellis, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Donna S. Koch, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Collier County; Frederick R. Hardt, Judge.
Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Judith Ellis, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Donna S. Koch, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
SILBERMAN, Chief Judge.
Gregorio Ruiz seeks review of his judgment and sentence for attempted sexual battery and sexual activity with a child by a person in familial or custodial authority which was entered pursuant to a negotiated plea. Although Ruiz filed a timely pro se motion to withdraw plea after sentencing pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170( l), the motion is a nullity because it was filed while Ruiz was still represented by counsel and was devoid of allegations giving rise to an adversarial relationship with counsel. See Sheppard v. State, 17 So.3d 275, 286 (Fla.2009). Because Ruiz has not properly preserved any challenges to his plea, we affirm.
Affirmed.