Martin v. State

At issue in this appeal is whether the trial court erred in failing to appoint conflict-free counsel to represent Appellant on his motion to withdraw plea before sentencing. As the State properly concedes, Appellant and his public defender had an apparent conflict of interest, and the trial court erred in not appointing conflict-free counsel to represent Appellant on the motion. See Zeiszler v. State, 765 So.2d 128 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Holifield v. State, 717 So.2d 69 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Roberts v. State, 670 So.2d 1042 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s denial of…