JAMES A. CORBITT, 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.
Corbitt appeals the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief, challenging his guilty plea based on alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. The court reverses and remands because the defendant raised a colorable claim that his counsel incorrectly advised him about gain time eligibility for habitual offenders, warranting an evidentiary hearing.
The court reversed the summary denial and remanded for an evidentiary hearing. The record refuted the claim regarding incorrect advice about the maximum sentence, but the claim about erroneous advice concerning gain time eligibility presented a colorable issue requiring a hearing to determine whether counsel gave false advice and whether such advice influenced the plea decision.
[1] A defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a motion for post-conviction relief if the motion alleges that counsel provided incorrect advice regarding gain time…
[2] A guilty plea may be rendered involuntary if induced by counsel's erroneous advice concerning the defendant's eligibility for gain time.
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 record refutes the first contention; however, we must reverse the summary denial of defendant's 3.850 motion based on the alleged false advice given by defendant's counsel concerning gain time eligibility.”
Establishes that while the maximum sentence claim was refuted, the gain time eligibility claim warranted reversal and evidentiary hearing
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCorbitt was charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon (second degree felony) and carrying a concealed firearm (third degree felony). H…
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 Gain Time Eligibility cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIFFIN, Judge.
Defendant timely appeals the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief.
Defendant was initially charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, a second degree felony, and carrying a concealed firearm, a third degree felony. Defendant signed a “Waiver of Rights and Agreement to Enter Plea” form which listed the counts with which he was charged and identified the maximum “enhanced” sentence as forty years. The document further reflects that defendant agreed to plead guilty to Count I and be adjudicated a habitual offender. In exchange, the state agreed to nol pros Count II.
Defendant entered his plea in open court. A copy of the transcript is attached to the trial court’s order. Defense counsel explained the plea agreement to the court. Thereafter the trial court conducted its examination of the voluntariness of the plea, listened to the defendant’s explanation of his actions, set forth the basis for imposing habitual offender treatment and imposed a fifteen year sentence.
In defendant’s motion for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel and/or involuntariness of his plea, he sought to have the judgment and sentence set aside and to withdraw his guilty plea. Defendant argued that, prior to entering his plea, defense counsel incorrectly advised him of the maximum term he was facing and that he would be eligible for all gain time. The record refutes the first contention; however, we must reverse the summary denial of defendant’s 3.850 motion based on the alleged false advice given by defendant’s counsel concerning gain time eligibility. Defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing to ascertain whether he was, in fact, incorrectly advised about entitlement to gain time, and whether such erroneous advice influenced his decision to plead. If so, the defendant is entitled to the relief he seeks. See Setzer v. State, 575 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991).
Such appeals of orders denying Rule 3.850 motions seeking to invalidate earlier habitual offender pleas are increasingly common. The grounds alleged run the gamut from affirmative misinformation by defense counsel about gain time, as in this case, to mere misunderstanding, as in Set-zer. Perhaps the best place to include this notification about the loss of gain time would be the plea agreement itself. Whether or not it is the duty of the trial judge to assure that defense counsel has performed its duty under rule 3.171(c)(2)(ii) to explain the loss of gain time for habitual offenders, as a last line of defense, verification by the trial judge that the defendant is aware of the gain time limitation would prevent such unnecessary Rule 3.850 proceedings.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
DAUKSCH and PETERSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Montgomery v. State, 615 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…a agreement and transcript not attached); Colon v. State, 586 So. 2d 1305 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (claim that plea was entered due to counsel’s advice that defendant would only serve two years sufficient to require further proceedings); Corbitt v. State, 584 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (claim that decision to plead to habitual offender sentence was based on erroneous advice of counsel as to gain time eligibility not refuted by plea transcript so evidentiary hearing required). In this case, Montgomery specifica…
-
Lopez v. State, 688 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…l court did not allow defendant effective representation by a conflict-free attorney, and such failure cannot be considered harmless. He was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his motion to withdraw his plea prior to sentencing. Corbitt v. State, 584 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). The sentences herein are set aside, and the order denying Lopez’ motion to withdraw his plea is reversed. This cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to conduct a pre-sentencing evidentiary hearing on Lopez’ motio…
-
Levens v. State, 598 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…which plea to enter, the particulars attendant upon each plea, and the likely result thereof.” Setter, 575 So. 2d at 747, citing State v. Ginebra, 511 So. 2d 960 (Fla.1987). See abo Caristi v. State, 578 So. 2d 769, 773 (Fla.1991); Corbitt v. State, 584 So. 2d 231, 232 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). Since the record in Setter was silent regarding whether the appellant had ever been informed, either prior to, or at the time of pleading guilty, that his plea would result in the loss of basic gain time, the denial of the…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Setzer v. State, 575 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)