for withdrawal under rule 9.140(b)(2)(A)(ii)(e). “ ‘Where a defendant seeks to withdraw his plea on the ground that it was coerced by his attorney, the trial court must either appoint conflict-free counsel or permit the defendant the opportunity to secure the same and, then, conduct an evidentiary hearing on the motion to withdraw plea.’ ” Brown v. State, 835 So.2d 402, 403 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (quoting Lingenfelser v. State, 734 So.2d 472, 472-73 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)); see also Gunn v. State, 841 So.2d 629, 631 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Accordingly, the trial court should have appointed conflict-free counsel to represent Mr. Council and to adopt or revise the motion, which was drafted by a lawyer with whom Mr. Council had a conflict. See Tuhey v. State, 972 So.2d 1029, 1030 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (<HOLDING>). The trial court also observed that the plea
holding defendant entitled to appointment of conflictfree counsel to assist with preparation of facially sufficient motion to withdraw plea holding that a defendant who had waited thirteen months after trevino was decided before seeking appointment of conflictfree counsel had not filed his rule 60b motion within a reasonable time holding that a defendant who is allowed to withdraw his plea must either withdraw his plea to all charges or to none when his plea to all charges was part of an agreement with the state holding that trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider defendants motion to withdraw guilty plea filed beyond term of court in which defendant was sentenced holding that if the defendant fails to file a motion in the trial court to withdraw his plea he cannot attack it for the first time on appeal