Brosnan P. Hart v. State
District Court of Appeal of Florida
1Per curiam
Brosnan Pearson Hart (“Appellant”) correctly asserts, and the State agrees, that if he was indigent, he was entitled to the appointment of counsel to assist him in the preparation of a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170 motion to withdraw his guilty pleas to attempted first-degree murder and robbery with a firearm. Appellant was represented by privately retained counsel at the plea hearing. The trial court confirmed during a thorough plea colloquy that Appellant understood the charges, that he had discussed the case with his counsel, and that he was freely and voluntarily pleading…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Searcy v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2008
- James H. Tipler v. State of FloridaDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2014
3Cited by1 opinion
- JOSEPH ANDRE NAVARRO vs STATE OF FLORIDADistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2022