With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". pro se motion to withdraw plea, he argued that “the plea offered ... was not the plea [a]greed upon [b]y the State and the Defendant” and that he “signed a plea under false pretenses and [was] led to [b]elieve it [was] the State[’]s offer.” These allegations — if taken alone — were sufficiently refuted by the written plea agreement and the plea colloquy. However, Davis’s counsel also filed a motion to withdraw plea, asserting that Davis told counsel that “he was not properly served by undersigned counsel”; counsel also asserted that “[presumably this ... resulted in an involuntary plea being entered by Defendant.” We are not entirely convinced that such a general allegation was sufficient to warrant a Sheppard hearing. See, e.g., Davis v. State, 52 So.3d 697, 698 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (<HOLDING>); Carter v. State, 22 So.3d 793, 795 (Fla. 1st

A: holding that counsel was not deficient in failing to call a witness where the defendant never provided the witnesss name to counsel and no evidence existed that counsel had any notice of the witnesss identity
B: holding that juveniles may waive right to counsel only upon advice of counsel
C: holding that counsels motion was not sufficient where counsel alleged only that counsel and appellants positions had become adverse
D: holding that even if counsel had performed as petitioner alleged counsel should have governments case was still as strong and guilty plea was prudent course
C.