BARRY SANDERS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
This case concerns whether a defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel by not being informed of his right to be classified as a youthful offender during plea negotiations. The appellate court found the defendant's allegations sufficient to warrant an evidentiary hearing.
The court held that the appellant's allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel are sufficient to require an evidentiary hearing. The appellant had a right to be classified as a youthful offender at the time of his crime, and the failure to inform him of this right could constitute ineffective assistance.
[1] A defendant's eligibility for classification as a youthful offender is determined by the law in effect at the time the crime was committed.
[2] Ineffective assistance of counsel claims based on a failure to advise a defendant of their right to youthful offender classification may warrant an evidentiary hearing.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“He now contends that his counsel was ineffective because he failed to advise him during the original plea negotiations that he was entitled to be classified as a youthful offender pursuant to section 958.-04(2), Florida Statutes (1979).”
States the appellant's core claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant, Barry Sanders, pleaded guilty to aggravated battery at age twenty and was placed on probation. His probation was later revoked, and he was …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Youthful Offender Classification cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIMES, Judge.
This is an appeal from the denial of appellant’s motion for post-conviction relief.
Appellant alleges that in January of 1980, at the’ age of twenty, he committed an aggravated battery. Pursuant to plea negotiations, he pled guilty, and the court placed him on three years probation. Thereafter, his probation was revoked, and he was sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment. He now contends that his counsel was ineffective because he failed to advise him during the original plea negotiations that he was entitled to be classified as a youthful offender pursuant to section 958.-04(2), Florida Statutes (1979). He asserts that during the plea bargaining proceedings, he was informed that he could receive up to fifteen years in prison if found guilty by a jury and claims that had he been informed of his statutory right to be sentenced as a youthful offender, he would not have accepted three years probation.
A handwritten note on the face of the motion suggests that the motion was denied because the court reasoned that classification of appellant as a youthful offender was a discretionary matter. Actually, however, the eligibility for classification as a youthful offender did not become fully discretionary until section 958.04 was amended, effective October 1, 1980. Ch. 80-321, Laws of Fla. Since the date of the crime controls the applicability of the Youthful Offender Act, State v. Pizarro, 383 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), and appellant’s crime was committed prior to the Act’s amendment, he had a right to be classified as a youthful offender providing he met the other criteria of the statute. While appellant may have waived his right to be sentenced under the Act by virtue of accepting probation, Preston v. State, 411 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 3d DCA), petition for review denied, 418 So. 2d 1280 (Fla.1982), we think his allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel are sufficient to require an evidentiary hearing.
Accordingly, we reverse the order denying the motion for post-conviction relief and remand the case for an evidentiary hearing.
BOARDMAN, A.C.J., and DANAHY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Carswell v. State, 845 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…l’s allegations regarding his attorney’s failure to advise him that he was eligible for sentencing as a youthful offender are true. However, we believe this claim is facially sufficient entitling him to an evi-dentiary hearing. See Sanders v. State, 432 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); State v. Brown, 525 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); [*264] Lucas v. State, 461 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). We affirm the trial court’s summary denial of the other claims raised by Carswell in his motion without discussion.…
-
Montgomery v. State, 869 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…y’s allegations regarding his attorney’s failure to advise him that he was eligible for sentencing as a youthful offender are true. However, we believe this claim is facially sufficient to entitle him to an evidentiary hearing. See Sanders v. State, 432 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). Reversed and remanded. FULMER and SILBERMAN, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Eldridge Pizarro, 383 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Ruiz v. State, 411 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Preston v. State, 411 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)