BENJAMIN R. HOLT, 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.
Benjamin Holt appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief, claiming his plea was involuntary because his trial counsel misinformed him about the maximum sentences he faced. The trial court failed to adequately address Holt's arguments, and the appellate court reverses and remands for proper consideration.
The court holds that counsel's statements regarding the maximum sentences were incorrect and could have persuaded Holt to enter the plea agreement, thus the case must be remanded for proper proceedings on the postconviction motion.
[1] A trial court's summary denial of a motion for postconviction relief must adequately address the movant's arguments.
[2] A defendant's plea may be rendered involuntary if counsel misinforms the defendant about the maximum sentences faced.
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“Counsel was incorrect when he allegedly stated that a sentence of life could be imposed for the second-degree burglary charge. The maximum sentence, enhanced by the habitual offender statute, is thirty years' imprisonment.”
Establishes the factual error in counsel's advice about maximum sentence exposure for the burglary charge
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHolt was charged with second-degree burglary and violation of probation, with the state seeking to have him classified as a habitual offender. His tri…
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.
Benjamin Rayce Holt appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief in which he asserts his plea was involuntary because his attorney misinformed him of the maximum sentences he faced. The trial court’s order does not adequately address Holt’s argument; accordingly, we reverse and remand.
Holt asserts that he was charged with second-degree burglary and violation of probation. The state sought to have Holt classified as a habitual offender. When presented with the state’s negotiated plea agreement, counsel allegedly stated that due to his sentencing guidelines score he would receive a sentence of life for the second-degree burglary charge. Further, counsel informed him that even if he were found not guilty on the new charge, he would still receive a maximum sentence of twenty-seven years for the violation of probation.
In addressing the alleged misstatements of counsel, the trial court incorrectly states that Holt is complaining that counsel informed him he could receive twenty-seven years’ imprisonment for the second-degree burglary charge. Further, the trial court notes that pending before the court was a charge of violation of probation for armed burglary which is punishable by a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. The court found that Holt was not prejudiced by counsel’s advice.
We disagree. Counsel was incorrect when he allegedly stated that a sentence of life could be imposed for the second-degree burglary charge. The maximum sentence, enhanced by the habitual offender statute, is thirty years’ imprisonment. Further, we note that Holt indicates that the probation for the prior armed burglary was being served pursuant to a plea agreement which reduced the armed burglary to a second-degree burglary. Neither the new charge of burglary nor the underlying charges which were the subject of the violation of probation support trial counsel’s statement that Holt faced a sentence of life imprisonment.
The misinformation allegedly provided by trial counsel could have persuaded Holt to enter into the plea agreement. This case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. The court may again deny this motion without an evidentiary hearing if it attaches those portions of the record which conclusively refute Holt’s allegations.
Reversed and remanded.
RYDER, A.C.J., and DANAHY and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gonzalez v. State, 761 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 2000)…PER CURIAM. We initially accepted review of Gonzalez v. State, 714 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), based on express and direct conflict with State v. Leroux, 689 So. 2d 235 (Fla.1996), and Holt v. State, 653 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Upon further consideration, we find that jurisdiction was improvidently granted in this case. Accordingly, we hereby dismiss review of this cause. It is so ordered. HARDING, C.J., and SHAW, WELLS, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ., concu…