Skip to main content

Williams v. State

Citations

  • 919 So. 2d 645
  • 2006 WL 167986

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that “[w]here the coercion alleged [to enter a plea] is legally insufficient or conclusively refuted by the record, there is no need to hold an evidentiary hearing or appoint conflict-free counsel”
  • holding that “[w]here the coercion alleged [to enter a plea] is legally insufficient or conclusively refuted by the record, there is no need to hold an evidentiary hearing or appoint conflict-free counsel”
  • finding that where the coercion alleged is legally insufficient or conclusively refuted by the record, there is no need to hold an evidentiary hearing or appoint conflict-free counsel
  • defendant’s bare allegation of “coercion,” unsupported by specific factual allegations, was conclusively refuted by the record
  • “Where the coercion alleged is legally insufficient or conclusively refuted by the record, there is no need to hold an evidentiary hearing or appoint conflict-free counsel.”
  • denial of motion to withdraw guilty plea without evidentiary hearing not abuse of discretion

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Per Curiam

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

21 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.