Whether a post-conviction motion challenging a plea agreement's validity can be considered when new evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel emerges after the plea was entered

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED I Does « manjest injustice ocenr when the Court and counsel Fajls 4 explain the potenhal collateral CoNSeauonces of a plea, which renders the ples involontaras, resuHfing ha Funds mek! enrop and due Po uss ve lation? 2. Does « manifest injustce ettur when ovase! pruides al Firmetve miredvice re garcling Ye pore nts] Cllaters| Co nveguences oF a plea, which vevders He plea faveloatary, re Su Mh ng ta aFandemiuntil erpp aod 4 dhe prowss Vielation, and also vivlates the 6th Amendment nist % Fhechre counsel? 3. 1s a belted pleg withd eral motion tienely Filed shen ean ayve Mand Files He motion with, Pres jean oF the discover oy new evidence, that tvas vnknown and not able to be dis tovered Paes dve diths exe at fe fime te ddendaat SAned the plea ? Pees the courts Farlire to accept He hilakd ples witbelreaa 45 Finely Siled wrelate He appellent’s ny ht to due prcess? tL. 6 beleled alec cs oy flee withdrine! moto, Fm, Filed hen an tsp llaap Files the roton Lith tee yews overs | . rma tive madvite oF Colecter, | Conseguencas That ins unkncun at the hae the deFerdaat Signed te pleas Devs He Courts denial oF this. clad nn Vivlate due prowess? S Does @ mus Carringe oF justice occur then 4 clofrict Court oF aypeals Fails + Filly consider Hh Reoee| on app ed aad fle appellants Posttanvichon 0 Fen cshen He Court merely per Curiam Sirms He Paling within only Seven days oF receiving the Sum mary record en eypeal, aad dy He mids¥ of conrd Closuns due to Hurritane Mitton, NS 9 Hig ina Holahts & elve process? C3 tates micariage oF Justice occur when tHe Sth DCA deparkd From Ye essential reprice rnb oF le by pee Catan then the Clarns sect not Cong las jvely reFubed by the eecordl ard also in direch veaFlict with He dakef court’ rabings in! h Sokason vi Stake, 92f Sadd 22 Fla, hyp, C0f 5 2s Morphy uo Shite, $0 Sudd 325 376 Fh, 4h OA 2002, 5 Comer Shaky UF Schl W4 Fl Ay, eta; 4, Stade vy, leo, 699 Sold 235 249 Fh M6: 5 Cohen o Shak 774 So 2d 604 Fe Ld DCA L007, 6 Chanavel y Stok, Ho odd UH Fh. My, 20022ifatous y, Stale 74I Set 6 Fl, Ay. 2001 8 Muse y, Shik, 23 54d 763 Fe, Ap 2009+ 4 Eixepen 4 ‘ , : i : Se S0.ed 2S Fi Stele, 440 Sold 770 Fla, Ayp, 1483; 10, Dudek vi Stet, 100 Sotd 1255 Fla, Ud S781, a Waugh v State, 788 i ‘ ad 13, Yanrh v, State, (22 Sot 614 Fh. ed BOA IER» and MM eaj Sthehy bea (180, 12: Willems ve State, 6 S0.2d 649 Fh MIT; 13, Tandh v. , | $42 bd bg (171 Fle, Stk OCA 2005) which is violatve of fle appellants rght bh du POSTS, 1 Ey te Appetlant' rigs te dee prrcess iad eFFective assis fanee oF counsel vivle ted arhen counsel prematiely otters repisentay dong He 30 rds Hae parted by witha, « plea, thus pevnhing He Aapetlant Eeom haely vithda wg 4s ples based on aFFirwcdie Misedurce of Coll ateal bomsege ences,