BOBBY J. HELMS, 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.
Bobby Helms appeals the denial of his motion for postconviction relief, challenging his no-contest plea on grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel and involuntary plea. The court reversed, holding that the voluntariness of a plea can be undercut by erroneous advice regarding appellate rights, and remanded for an evidentiary hearing.
The voluntariness of a plea can be undercut if influenced by erroneous advice regarding the defendant's appellate rights. The trial court must hold an evidentiary hearing to determine the extent of Helms's understanding and whether he reasonably relied on poor advice from counsel before determining whether he made a prima facie showing of entitlement to withdraw the plea.
[1] A defendant may be entitled to withdraw a plea if the decision to plead was influenced by erroneous advice regarding appellate rights.
[2] A prima facie showing of entitlement to withdraw a plea is not conclusively rebutted by exhibits attached to an order denying postconviction relief.
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“the voluntariness of a plea can be undercut if the decision to plead is influenced by erroneous advice regarding the defendant's appellate rights”
Establishes the core legal principle that bad counsel advice about appellate preservation can render a plea involuntary
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHelms's trial counsel recommended he enter a no-contest plea after the trial court denied his motion to suppress a confession. Helms wanted to preserv…
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 Motion To Suppress Confession cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Bobby Helms appeals the denial of his motion for postconviction relief. We reverse.
The two issues presented in Helms’s motion, ineffective assistance of counsel and involuntary plea of no contest, are interrelated. Helms alleges that he was persuaded to enter the plea after the trial court denied his motion to suppress confession. His desire was to preserve the suppression issue for appellate review.
However, the state refused to stipulate that the suppression order would be dispositive of the case. See Brown v. State, 376 So. 2d 382 (Fla.1979).
The trial court specifically found that the issue was not dispositive. Counsel, who disagreed, recommended that Helms go ahead with the plea.
On appeal the public defender withdrew pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and this court affirmed. Helms v. State, 535 So. 2d 272 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). Helms now maintains that counsel should have known there could be no chance of relief on appeal absent a stipulation or finding that the motion to suppress was dispositive.
The state, in their response to the motion, argues that Helms was aware he was taking a gamble by entering the plea in the face of the prosecutor’s and trial court’s resistance on the question of dispos-itiveness.
However, we believe that the extent of Helms’s understanding is a matter best addressed at an evidentiary hearing. While it is certainly possible he appreciated that he risked dismissal or summary affirmance of his appeal, so is there the possibility that he reasonably relied upon poor advice from counsel.
We conclude that Helms’s motion (if true) sets forth a prima facie showing of his entitlement to withdraw the plea, a showing which is not conclusively rebutted by the exhibits attached to the trial court’s order. In so holding, we note that the statement of facts contained in the Anders brief, as well as the motion to suppress (both of which are included in the record) suggest that the suppression issue was at least arguable, had it been properly preserved for appellate review.
However, it is not necessary that Helms prove at this stage that he would have prevailed on appeal, and our decision today should not be construed as a prediction of the success of any future appeal involving the confession.
We hold only that the voluntariness of a plea can be undercut if the decision to plead is influenced by erroneous advice regarding the defendant’s appellate rights. Gullo v. State, 280 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). See also, Newbold v. State, 521 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (appeal after guilty plea dismissed, without prejudice to challenge voluntariness of the plea via rule 3.850).
We note that the First District Court of Appeal appears to have taken a different viewpoint in Wright v. State, 547 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).
However, even in that case the court left open the possibility of the defendant establishing a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, as Helms has attempted to do. 547 So. 2d at 260, n. 4.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion and with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
RYDER, A.C.J., THREADGILL and PARKER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Colon v. State, 586 So. 2d 1305 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…ty with no reservation of appellate rights. Elsewhere this court has held that erroneous advice regarding a defendant’s appellate rights can constitute ineffective assistance of counsel, and may undercut the voluntariness of a plea. Helms v. State, 573 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). While Colon’s claim is not set forth with lawyer-like precision, when the motion and supporting attachments are taken as a whole we believe he has presented a prima facie showing that his rights were not preserved. After remand…
-
Colon v. State, 595 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…t to testify. When the court found otherwise, Colon was advised to, and did, plead guilty. This resulted in the dismissal of his appeal. Colon now asserts that he was led to believe his appellate rights would be preserved. See, e.g., Helms v. State, 573 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). In response to this claim the trial court has furnished a written plea agreement signed by Colon. This indicates a “best interests” plea, with no mention made of an appeal even though the form provides a separate checkoff for no…
-
Hunter v. State, 583 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…aising his Fourth Amendment issue via Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. This court has also recognized the possibility of collateral relief where the defendant was misled about his appellate rights in connection with a plea. Helms v. State, 573 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). However, the record before us indicates that the trial judge, before taking the plea, offered appellant additional time so his lawyer could “talk to all the witnesses, file appropriate motions, and have a jury trial if necessary.…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Brown v. State, 376 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 1979)
- Newbold v. State, 521 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Elliott James Wright v. State, 547 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Gullo v. State, 280 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)