Dearek Randy Williams v. State of Florida
Docket 6D2024-0350
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- Florida
- Court
- District Court of Appeal of Florida
- Type
- Opinion
- Case type
- Criminal Appeal
- Disposition
- Reversed
- Docket
- 6D2024-0350
Appeal from denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea following sentencing in a felony trafficking case
Summary
The Sixth District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court's denial of Dearek Randy Williams's motion to withdraw a nolo contendere plea to trafficking in fentanyl. Williams argued his plea was involuntary because trial counsel misadvised him that he could later appeal and "be out," which induced him to accept a mandatory 15-year sentence. The appellate court held that affirmative misadvice of counsel can create a manifest injustice rendering a plea involuntary, cited controlling precedent, and remanded the case for further proceedings on Williams's withdrawal motion.
Issues Decided
- Whether affirmative misadvice by defense counsel that induced a defendant to accept a plea can render the plea involuntary.
- Whether the trial court erred in denying a post-sentencing motion to withdraw a plea based on counsel's alleged misadvice.
Court's Reasoning
The court applied the rule that a defendant seeking to withdraw a plea after sentencing must show a manifest injustice such as involuntariness. Williams provided uncontroverted testimony that his attorney told him he could appeal the sentence and "be out," and that he would not have pleaded otherwise. Because affirmative misadvice by counsel can make a plea involuntary, the trial court erred in rejecting the claim merely because it believed no authority required counsel to predict which appeals are meritorious.
Authorities Cited
- State v. Partlow840 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 2003)
- Davis v. State373 So. 3d 372 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023)
- Walkup v. State822 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
Parties
- Appellant
- Dearek Randy Williams
- Appellee
- State of Florida
- Judge
- Vincent S. Chiu
- Judge
- Wozniak, J.
- Judge
- Mize, J.
- Judge
- Gannam, J.
- Attorney
- Paula C. Coffman
- Attorney
- Kurt T. Koehler
Key Dates
- Decision date
- 2026-05-01
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Proceed with remand proceedings
The trial court must hold further proceedings consistent with the appellate ruling to determine whether the plea should be withdrawn.
- 2
Consult defense counsel about withdrawal strategy
Defense counsel should prepare to present evidence and argument at the remand hearing showing the plea was induced by misadvice and whether withdrawal is appropriate.
- 3
Consider State's response and possible retrial planning
The State should prepare its response and, if withdrawal is granted, make decisions about recharging, plea offers, or proceeding to trial.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The appellate court reversed the trial court's denial of the motion to withdraw the plea and sent the case back for further proceedings because counsel's affirmative misadvice could have made the plea involuntary.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- Dearek Randy Williams, whose plea may be withdrawn and who may face further proceedings; defendants generally benefit from the precedent that misleading advice about appeals can invalidate pleas.
- What happens next in Williams's case?
- The case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings on his motion to withdraw the plea, consistent with the appellate decision.
- Can the State appeal this decision?
- The decision is a reversal by the intermediate appellate court; the State could seek review by the Florida Supreme Court only if it meets jurisdictional criteria.
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
Case No. 6D2024-0350
Lower Tribunal No. 2022-CF-000432
_____________________________
DEAREK RANDY WILLIAMS,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
_____________________________
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County.
Vincent S. Chiu, Judge.
May 1, 2026
WOZNIAK, J.
Dearek Randy Williams entered a plea of nolo contendere to the offense of
trafficking in 14 grams or more of fentanyl, in violation of sections
893.135(1)(c)4.a., and 893.135(1)(c)4.b.(II), Florida Statutes (2022), and was
sentenced to fifteen years in the Department of Corrections as a mandatory minimum
sentence. Based on his claim that he had entered his plea to the fifteen-year sentence
upon misadvice of counsel, Williams unsuccessfully sought to withdraw his plea.
On appeal, Williams argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to
withdraw plea because trial counsel’s misadvice created a manifest injustice that
rendered his plea involuntary and necessitated withdrawal. We agree.
At the hearing on his motion to withdraw plea, Williams testified that he
would not have entered the plea but for the misadvice of counsel. He provided
uncontroverted testimony that his trial counsel had advised him to take the plea and
that he could later appeal the sentence and “be out.” 1 This misadvice of counsel,
although recognized by the post-conviction court, was rejected as a basis for granting
withdrawal of the plea because the court was unaware of any authority “that indicates
that the defendant is entitled to sort of be told what is a meritorious and not
meritorious appeal.” It thus concluded that Williams’s plea was voluntary and denied
the motion. This was error.
Williams established that the affirmative misadvice of counsel misled him
into accepting a fifteen-year plea offer, rendering his plea involuntary. See State v.
Partlow, 840 So. 2d 1040, 1044 (Fla. 2003) (holding that “to obtain relief through a
motion to withdraw a plea after sentencing under rule 3.170(l), a defendant must
demonstrate a manifest injustice, such as involuntariness of the plea”); see also
Davis v. State, 373 So. 3d 372 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023) (holding attorney’s misadvice
about gain time eligibility could render plea involuntary); Walkup v. State, 822 So.
1
In fact, however, Williams had no right to appeal. Fla. R. App. P.
9.140(b)(2).
2
2d 524, 525 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (observing that, generally, affirmative misadvice
of counsel provides basis to allow withdrawal of plea). Accordingly, we reverse the
order denying Williams’s motion to withdraw his plea and remand for further
proceedings.
REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.
MIZE and GANNAM, JJ., concur.
Paula C. Coffman, Orlando, for Appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kurt T. Koehler, Assistant
Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING
AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
3