JOHN M. SMITH, 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.
Smith appealed the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief challenging the voluntariness of his guilty plea to escape. He alleged that his counsel misled him about the sentence he would receive and failed to advise him that he could be sentenced as a habitual offender, causing his sentence to be enhanced to four years instead of the agreed two and one-half years.
The court reversed the summary denial of Smith's postconviction motion and remanded for an evidentiary hearing because the record did not conclusively refute his allegations that counsel misled him about the sentence and failed to advise him of habitual offender sentencing consequences. If counsel did misrepresent the consequences of the plea, Smith would be entitled to withdraw it.
[1] A guilty plea may be rendered involuntary if counsel misadvises the defendant about the consequences of the plea, entitling the defendant to withdraw the plea.
[2] A defendant is entitled to rely on counsel's representations regarding the consequences of a guilty plea.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“While a defendant may not withdraw his voluntary plea solely because the sentence is not what his attorney led him to expect, he is entitled to rely on counsel's representations. If he is misled by counsel about the consequences of a plea, he should be permitted to withdraw that plea.”
Establishes the standard for when a defendant may withdraw a guilty plea based on counsel's misrepresentations about plea consequences.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSmith pleaded guilty to escape with what he believed was an agreement that his sentence would not exceed two and one-half years. At sentencing, the tr…
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 Involuntary Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from the summary denial of appellant’s motion for postconviction relief that alleged four grounds, all of which involve the voluntariness of appellant's guilty plea to the charge of escape. Essentially, appellant claims that his plea was rendered involuntary when his sentence was enhanced to four years’ imprisonment pursuant to the habitual offender statute, section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1987), because it was his agreement that his sentence would be no more than two and one-half years and his counsel did not advise him that the plea agreement had been changed.
The record attachments to the trial court’s summary denial of appellant’s motion do not conclusively refute his allegations. Rather, the attached court minutes of appellant’s sentencing hearing reveal that appellant objected to the trial court’s finding that habitual offender status was appropriate. There is no indication that appellant was given an opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea upon learning that the trial court intended to impose an enhanced sentence.
In Weidmann v. State, 523 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), this court reversed the summary denial of a motion for postconviction relief and remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine if Weidmann’s pleas were induced by his counsel’s representations regarding parole, stating:
While a defendant may not withdraw his voluntary plea solely because the sentence is not what his attorney led him to expect, he is entitled to rely on counsel’s representations. If he is misled by counsel about the consequences of a plea, he should be permitted to withdraw that plea. [Citations omitted.]
Id.
Here, appellant alleges that counsel led him to believe that by pleading guilty to the charge, he would receive a two and one-half year term of imprisonment, but failed to advise him that he could or would be sentenced as a habitual offender. If this allegation is true, then appellant might be entitled to relief.
Because we cannot ascertain from the trial court’s attachment of the court minutes whether appellant understood the consequences of his plea, we reverse the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief. On remand, unless the case files and records conclusively show that appellant is not entitled to relief, the trial court shall order the state to file an answer. After receipt of the answer, the trial court shall determine whether an evidentiary hearing is required. If the trial , court should summarily deny the motion again, it shall attach such portions of the record which conclusively refute appellant’s allegations. Any party aggrieved by the subsequent action of the trial court must file a notice of appeal within thirty days to obtain appellate review.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
RYDER, A.C.J., and PARKER and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McCUTCHEON v. State, 595 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…s to the content of that discussion. In the face of appellant’s statements in his petition, an evidentiary hearing should be held in order to determine whether appellant was sufficiently advised of the consequences of his plea. E.g., Smith v. State, 556 So. 2d 804 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).…
-
Jasperson v. State, 603 So. 2d 144 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…ly informed about his possible sentence. Because he was allegedly unaware of the possibility of such a severe penalty, he claims that he is entitled to a withdrawal of his guilty plea. See Mikenas v. State, 460 So. 2d 359 (Fla.1984); Smith v. State, 556 So. 2d 804 (Fla. 2d DCA1990). The state submits that appellant was aware at the original sentencing hearing that the sentencing guidelines scoresheet reflected only one prior third, and that, therefore, appellant’s misrepresentations as to his prior record we…
Authorities Cited
- Weidmann v. State, 523 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)