ANTHONY BRIAN CONLEY
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.
Anthony Brian Conley appeals the summary denial of his postconviction motion for relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The court affirmed most claims but reversed and remanded Ground 6, finding that hearing notes did not conclusively refute Conley's claim that trial counsel failed to advise him of his HVFO designation and its impact on his maximum sentence.
The court reversed the summary denial of Ground 6, finding that even if hearing notes could refute such claims, the notes in this case were insufficient because they did not reference any specific sentencing enhancement or indicate the maximum sentence actually discussed at the hearing.
[1] A postconviction court's order denying a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on a rejected plea offer must conclusively refute the claim with attachments tha…
[2] Hearing notes that merely state a trial court reviewed the maximum possible sentence do not conclusively refute a claim that counsel failed to advise the defendant of spe…
Previewing 2 of 3 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 need not decide whether hearing notes can refute this type of claim because, even if they could, the substance of the notes attached to the order in this case does not conclusively refute Conley's claim.”
Establishes that the court was willing to assume hearing notes could be sufficient but found these particular notes inadequate to refute the ineffective assistance claim.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceConley rejected a favorable plea offer and proceeded to trial, where he was found guilty. He later filed a postconviction motion arguing that trial co…
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 Advice cases and more on FLexlaw
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA
Case No. 5D2025-0280 LT Case No. 55-2018-CF-1240-A
ANTHONY BRIAN CONLEY,
Appellant,
v. STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for St. Johns County. R. Lee Smith, Judge.
Rachael E. Reese, of Rachael Reese, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kaylee D. Tatman, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
February 13, 2026
PER CURIAM.
Anthony Brian Conley appeals the summary denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for postconviction relief. We affirm as to all claims except Ground 6.
In Ground 6, Conley argued that he rejected a favorable plea offer because his trial counsel failed to advise him that if he proceeded to trial and was found guilty, he qualified as a Habitual Violent Felony Offender (“HVFO”), and how the designation would increase his maximum sentence. In denying the claim, the postconviction court attached “hearing notes” indicating, in shorthand form, that the trial court, at a pretrial hearing, reviewed "the max . . . the defendant could receive if found guilty."
We need not decide whether hearing notes can refute this type of claim because, even if they could, the substance of the notes attached to the order in this case does not conclusively refute Conley's claim. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f)(4).¹ For instance, the notes do not reference any specific sentencing enhancement or indicate the maximum sentence discussed at the hearing.
We therefore reverse the denial of Ground 6 and remand for further proceedings on that claim. We otherwise affirm.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; and REMANDED.
MAKAR, EISNAUGLE, and HARRIS, JJ., concur. Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.