Court Opinion

ID: 9803900
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 16:09:59.185177+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:03:35.029728
License: Public Domain

BENTON, J.,
dissenting.
I would accept the state’s concession of error in this case, which involved the denial of an initial motion for continuance filed by replacement counsel who had actually made an appearance in the case. See generally Madison v. State, 132 So.3d 237, 239 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (reversing for failure to grant a successive motion for continuance where “replacement counsel had [reportedly] agreed to take Madison’s case if *114the continuance was granted”). The state’s brief asserts not only that denial of the motion for continuance was an abuse of discretion but also that appellant’s “plea was not voluntary.”