EDWARD E. MARSHALL, 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.
The court held that the trial court must conduct an evidentiary hearing on the appellant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel regarding undisclosed evidence and misrepresentations about work release eligibility.
Appellant sought post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, claiming he was not informed the victim recanted and that counsel …
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 Withdrawal Of Guilty Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This cause is before us on appeal of the trial court’s order on rehearing denying appellant’s motion under Rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. Appellant has alleged numerous grounds for re versal. Some of them require further consideration by the trial court.
Appellant alleges that, although he was informed of the existence of a videotape on the date he pled, he was not told of the contents of the tape until after entering his plea. The contents allegedly were that the victim recanted the accusation. Accordingly, appellant allegedly did not know that the evidence against him was substantially weakened when he pled. In Golden v. State, 509 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), this court held that an attorney’s failure to advise his client that the State’s evidence was weak, was constitutionally deficient assistance of counsel, if true. Since nothing in the trial court’s attachments to the order denying the motion showed that appellant knew that the victim had recanted the allegations, we remand for an evidentiary hearing on this point.
Appellant also alleges that his counsel told him, prior to pleading, that he would be eligible for work release if he pled guilty. However, sex offenders are not eligible for work release under Section 951.24(2)(c), Florida Statutes. Nothing in the record before us refutes this allegation, and appellant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on this point also.
We find appellant’s other arguments are without merit. However, the trial court is also directed to make appellant’s score-sheet a part of the record in this case and to determine whether it was accurately scored. If it was inaccurately scored, the trial court may consider this fact in conjunction with any other facts indicating possible ineffective assistance of counsel, in determining whether appellant’s plea should be vacated.
BOOTH, BARFIELD and MINER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pitts v. State, 855 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…with directions for the trial court to either hold an evidentiary hearing or to attach portions of the record conclusively refuting the appellant’s entitlement to relief. See Webster v. State, 744 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Marshall v. State, 540 So. 2d 921, 922 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). We certify conflict with Taylor v. State, 818 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) as to Appellant’s constitutional challenge that Chap. 99-188, Laws of Florida violates the constitutional single subject rule. AFFIRMED IN PART…
-
Johnson v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)…his counsel recommended. These assertions, taken as true, establish a facially sufficient claim of deficient performance and prejudice under Strickland v. Washington *. Hill v. State, 258 So. 3d 577, 579 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018); Marshall v. State, 540 So. 2d 921, 922 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Golden v. State, 509 So. 2d 1149, 1153-54 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). We reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing on this ground. AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED. OSTERHAUS and ROWE, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Golden v. State, 509 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)