MARK J. ZDUNIAK, 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.
Mark Zduniak appealed the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief, raising claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The court affirmed denial of some claims but reversed and remanded regarding whether counsel made incorrect promises about the actual length of his sentence.
The court affirmed that counsel's failure to file a notice of appeal was not ineffective because Zduniak had no right to appeal after entering a nolo contendere plea without reserving issues. However, the court reversed and remanded the claim regarding incorrect promises about sentence duration, as the record did not conclusively refute that counsel made such promises outside the plea colloquy.
[1] A defendant who enters a nolo contendere plea without reserving issues for appellate review and agrees to a specific sentence has no right to appeal, rendering counsel's…
[2] An attorney's incorrect assurances to a client regarding the actual length of a prison sentence, particularly concerning gain time or early release, can render a subseque…
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“Counsel's failure to file a notice, even if Zduniak requested he do so, is immaterial.”
Establishes that no ineffective assistance claim lies for failure to file a notice of appeal when the defendant had no right to appeal due to plea waiver.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceZduniak entered a plea of nolo contendere to a sentence of four and one-half years without reserving appellate issues. He claims his trial attorney pr…
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Mark Zduniak appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Of the four issues raised in the motion, only two merit extended comment. First, Zduniak contends that his trial attorney was ineffective for having failed to file a timely notice of appeal. See State v. District Court of Appeal, First District, 569 So. 2d 439 (Fla.1990). Zduniak entered a plea of nolo contendere without reserving any issues for appellate review, and agreed to the specific sentence that he received. Accordingly, he had no right to appeal. Counsel’s failure to file a notice, even if Zduniak requested he do so, is immaterial. Bridges v. Dugger, 518 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). A second issue does warrant further proceedings. Zduniak alleges that counsel promised he would actually serve only ten months of his four and one-half-year prison sentence. Zduniak further states that he has learned he will serve at least two years. Because of counsel’s incorrect assurances, Zduniak now feels his plea was involuntary. See, e.g., Tarpley v. State, 566 So. 2d 914 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Bullard v. State, 477 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).
If Zduniak’s allegations are true, this is yet another case in which a defendant and his attorney speculated about what a certain sentence “really” means.
With or without a specific plea agreement, it can be expected that the “flat-time” sentence ultimately imposed by the court will be further reduced to some extent by gain time. Most defense attorneys, and perhaps a substantial percentage of their clients, presumably know this. However, as Tarpley and similar cases demonstrate, an attorney who promises a certain favorable result — particularly one who does so to convince the client that a “maximum” sentence is shorter than it appears — operates at the risk he or she later will be accused of ineffectiveness.
Simmons v. State, 611 So. 2d 1250, 1253 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (footnote omitted).
The trial court’s order refers to a written plea agreement which that court found sufficient to refute this portion of Zduniak’s motion. However, the form is not attached to the order denying postconviction relief. The transcript of Zduniak’s plea colloquy does not indicate whether additional promises were made to him apart from those specifically mentioned in court. Only the maximum length of sentence was discussed at that time, and not the effect of gain time or other forms of early release.
After remand the trial court should reexamine the files and records in this case in an attempt to determine whether anything therein conclusively refutes Zduniak’s claim that his plea was undercut by incorrect promises about the actual duration of his sentence. If so, the court may again deny the motion, attaching to its order whatever documentation it has relied upon. Otherwise, an evidentiary hearing may be necessary. Any party aggrieved by the subsequent actions of the trial court must file a timely notice to obtain further appellate review.
The remaining issues in the motion are without merit and the trial court properly denied relief as to those grounds.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.
PARKER, A.C.J., and PATTERSON and BLUE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Trowell, 739 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 1999)…A 1998) (en banc), which certified conflict with the decisions in Bridges v. Dugger, 518 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), Gonzalez v. State, 685 So. 2d 975 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997), Loadholt v. State, 683 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), and Zduniak v. State, 620 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. For the reasons that follow, we approve Trowell. Ronald Trowell entered a guilty plea and was convicted of armed burglary and first-degree murder for an incident occurring…
-
Trowell v. State, 706 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…ions have taken the same approach as the court in Bridges. See, e.g., Thomas v. State, 626 So. 2d 1093 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Gonzalez v. State, 685 So. 2d 975 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Loadholt v. State, 683 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Zduniak v. State, 620 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Bridges and its progeny are based primarily on Robinson v. State, 373 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1979),3 wherein the Florida Supreme Court held that a valid guilty plea waives the right to appeal all issues arising before the entry of the…1 / 3
-
Keithan Darnell Battie v. Singletary, 718 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…t make a showing that his conviction and sentencing order fall within any of the exceptions provided for in Rule 9.140. See Gonzalez v. State, 685 So. 2d 975 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Loadholt v. State, 683 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Zduniak v. State, 620 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Bridges v. Dugger, 518 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). We certify direct conflict with [*325] Trowell v. State, 706 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (en banc). Petition denied.* * We reject the State's argument of time bar. See Fl…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Dist. Court of Appeal of Fla., 569 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 1990)
- Simmons v. State, 611 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Tarpley v. State, 566 So. 2d 914 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- Bridges v. Dugger, 518 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Paulino Nunez v. City OF Hialeah & David Leahy, 477 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)