FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-1287

_____________________________

ALLAN MICHAEL HAMILTON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Marianne L. Aho, Judge.

November 1, 2019

PER CURIAM.

We reject Appellant’s claim that he is entitled to a new 

hearing on his motion to withdraw his open plea to aggravated 

battery with actual possession and discharge of a firearm under 

10-20-Life. He represented himself at trial, and decided to plead 

guilty before the State completed its case in chief. The trial court 

appointed counsel for plea proceedings, and conducted an 

exceedingly thorough colloquy, informing Appellant multiple times 

that he was subject to a mandatory-minimum sentence of 25 years, 

and up to life in prison. Appellant signed a plea form again 

acknowledging that no one, including his lawyer, had promised 

him any specific sentence; and that he entered the plea willingly 

and without the influence of any physical, mental, emotional, or 
2

medication-related barriers to a full understanding of the plea 

agreement.

After being sentenced to the 25-year minimum-mandatory 

term, Appellant moved to withdraw his plea for several reasons 

including misinformation from the attorney representing him for 

the plea. His attorney refused to adopt the motion to withdraw 

plea, so Appellant asked to discharge counsel. The trial court 

conducted a Nelson hearing and a Faretta inquiry, at which 

Appellant’s attorney refused to contradict Appellant and 

reiterated that Appellant had entered the plea against advice of 

counsel. The trial court found Appellant competent to represent 

himself on the motion to withdraw plea. At that hearing, the State 

demonstrated that Appellant’s claims were refuted by the plea 

colloquy and plea agreement; and introduced jail calls in which 

Appellant indicated he was moving to withdraw his plea to game 

the system. Appellant’s plea counsel did not testify. The court 

denied the motion to withdraw the plea.

On these facts, the trial court did not err in failing to appoint 

new counsel for Appellant’s motion to withdraw plea. Each of 

Appellant’s allegations of ineffective counsel or involuntariness of 

plea was conclusively refuted by the record. See, e.g., Flemming v. 

State, 204 So. 3d 950, 952 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (holding that failure 

to hold a conflict hearing is harmless where the record conclusively 

refutes defendant’s allegations); Davis v. State, 938 So. 2d 555, 557 

(Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (“An appellant is not entitled to go behind 

sworn representations made to the court.”). Appointed counsel’s 

refusal to adopt Appellant’s meritless motion was proper, did not 

lead to entry of the plea, and was not grounds for a new hearing.

Flemming, 204 So. 3d at 952; cf. Sheppard v. State, 17 So. 3d 275, 

287 (Fla. 2009) (holding conflict hearing is required when 

defendant’s allegations are not conclusively refuted by the record 

and the allegations led to entry of the plea). 

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, KELSEY, and WINOKUR, JJ., concur.
3

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Susanne K. Sichta, Rick A. Sichta, and Joseph Hamrick, of the 

Sichta Firm, LLC, Jacksonville, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Tabitha Herrera, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.