NICHOLAS ARNOLD SCHOCK v. STATE OF FLORIDA (2024)

Nicholas Arnold Schock appeals his judgment and sentences following a no contest plea to felony battery, disorderly conduct, and exposure of sexual organs. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 4(b)(1), Fla. Const. We affirm the judgment and sentences and write only to explain why we disagree with the State's concession of error.

The State concedes that the trial court violated Schock's due process rights by failing to offer to appoint conflict-free counsel after he filed a motion to withdraw plea pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(l) because a motion to withdraw plea is a critical stage in the proceedings. See Smith v. State, 849 So. 2d 485, 485–86 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). However, Schock did not raise this argument in his initial brief. Nor did he raise it in his amended initial brief after being put on notice of the issue in the State's answer brief. See Rosier v. State, 276 So. 3d 403, 407 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019) (citing M.S. v. Dep't of Child. & Fams., 210 So. 3d 147, 152 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)). Because Schock did not address this issue in his briefs, even after having been placed on notice of it, the issue is deemed waived or abandoned. See Menchillo v. State, 350 So. 3d 136, 139 n.1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022).

Affirmed.

VILLANTI, Judge.

KHOUZAM and LABRIT, JJ., Concur.