Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): on the merits. As the post-conviction court recognized, the trial court never formally accepted appellant’s plea. Because there was no formal acceptance, and sentence had not yet been pronounced, appellant had a right to withdraw his plea without any justification for doing so. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.172(g); see also Campbell, at 739. He attempted to assert this right, both independently and through his attorney, to no avail. Counsel was deficient in failing to adopt and present appellant’s motions to withdraw the plea because, under these circumstances, appellant had an affirmative right to withdraw the plea, and counsel’s failure to correctly advise or advocate appellant’s desire in this instance constitutes deficient performance. See Puglisi v. State, 112 So.3d 1196, 1205 (Fla.2013) (<HOLDING>). Regarding the prejudice prong of the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to accept the defendants guilty pleas to two counts of the indictment and stating that even if the trial court erred the error had not prejudiced the defendant because he was found guilty by the jury of the charges to which he intended to plead and the evidence of the other crimes would have been admissible in the trial for the first degree murder charge (B) holding that written jury waivers alone cannot validly waive a defendants right to a jury trial (C) holding that the standard for determining competency to plead guilty is whether the defendant has a rational understanding of the proceedings (D) holding that decisions on whether to plead guilty or waive the right to a jury trial reside solely with the defendant (E) recognizing the right to waive a jury trial
Output (English): holding that the standard for determining competency to plead guilty is whether the defendant has a rational understanding of the proceedings