Case Name: William WOFFORD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2002-06-17
Citations: 819 So. 2d 891
Docket Number: No. 1D01-435
Parties: William WOFFORD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: WEBSTER, J., concurs; MINER, J., dissents with written opinion.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 819
Pages: 891–894

Head Matter:
William WOFFORD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 1D01-435.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
June 17, 2002.
Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Joel Arnold, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Douglas T. Squire, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee,- for Appellee.

Opinion:
ALLEN, C.J.
The appellant challenges the denial of his motion to withdraw a plea, with the motion being timely and properly made under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(i). This pro se motion was filed after the court discharged the appellant's appointed counsel subsequent to sentencing. Because the appellant was unrepresented and it does not appear that any offer of counsel was made by the court at this critical stage in the proceeding, the order denying the motion to withdraw the plea must be reversed and the case remanded so as to effectuate the appellant's right to counsel. See Padgett v. State, 743 So.2d 70 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) ("The primary issue presented in this appeal concerns whether an indigent defendant has the right to court-appointed counsel to assist in filing a motion to withdraw plea after sentencing, pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(i). We answer the question in the affirmative and remand for the appointment of counsel."). Because the appellant has indicated his desire to avail himself of the rule 3.170(i) procedure, the trial judge upon remand shall appoint counsel to advise and assist the appellant in this regard.
The dissent conducts what appears to be a harmless error analysis. As Padgett and numerous other decisions point out, however, denial of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is per se reversible error. See Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); Lee v. State, 690 So.2d 664 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).
The appealed order is reversed and the case is remanded.
WEBSTER, J., concurs; MINER, J., dissents with written opinion.