ALAN D. TAYLOR
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
Alan D. Taylor appealed the denial of his 3.850 postconviction motion based on a previously undisclosed plea offer discovered thirteen years after conviction. The court found his allegations sufficient to establish the plea offer was unknown to him and reversed for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether he could have discovered it with diligence and whether he meets the factors for postconviction relief.
The court reversed the summary denial and remanded for an evidentiary hearing. The allegations were sufficient to show the plea offer was unknown to Taylor at trial and could not have been discovered through the exercise of diligence, as his counsel advised him there was no offer and the clerk indicated no record of one existed.
[1] A previously undisclosed plea offer revealed years after conviction may constitute newly discovered evidence justifying a delayed postconviction motion.
[2] Allegations that counsel advised a defendant there was no plea offer and the clerk of court indicated no record of an offer are sufficient to show the defendant could not…
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“We find that Taylor's allegations are sufficient to show that the plea offer was unknown to him at the time of trial. We also find that he could not have known about it through the exercise of diligence because of the allegation that counsel advised him there was no offer, and the clerk of court indicated there was no record of an offer.”
Establishes the court's finding that the plea offer constitutes newly discovered evidence justifying the delayed filing.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTaylor had criminal cases pending simultaneously in Alachua and Putnam Counties. He alleges that although both counties attempted to negotiate a globa…
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 Plea Offer cases and more on FLexlaw
WALLIS, J.
Alan D. Taylor appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Taylor alleges that a previously undisclosed plea offer revealed thirteen years after his conviction and sentence constitutes newly discovered evidence justifying his delayed filing of his postconviction motion. Specifically, Taylor had cases pending simultaneously in Alachua and Putnam Counties. Taylor's motion, including attachments, established that although he knew that Alachua and Putnam Counties were attempting to negotiate a global plea, a deal was never finalized. Taylor further alleges that when he arrived in Putnam County his trial counsel told him there was no offer. Moreover, Taylor claims he only learned of a favorable plea offer in August 2015, when it was sent to him with other documents and "attached apparently by accident or without the clerk having direct knowledge."
We find that Taylor's allegations are sufficient to show that the plea offer was unknown to him at the time of trial. We also find that he could not have known about it through the exercise of diligence because of the allegation that counsel advised him there was no offer, and the clerk of court indicated there was no record of an offer. Therefore, we reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing for the trial court to determine when the plea offer was conveyed to Taylor, whether Taylor could have known about the plea offer sooner, and whether Taylor can meet the factors identified in Alcorn v. State, 121 So. 3d 419 (Fla. 2013).
REVERSED and REMANDED with Instructions.
LAMBERT and GROSSHANS, JJ., concur. 2