MICHAEL LAMAR WATSON, 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.
Michael Lamar Watson appeals the denial of his motion for postconviction relief, arguing he was not informed of the consequences of being sentenced as a habitual violent felony offender before entering his guilty plea, including loss of gain-time, provisional credits, and early release eligibility. The court reverses and remands, finding the trial court failed to adequately address Watson's allegations regarding lack of proper notice.
The court holds that prior to accepting a guilty plea that may result in habitualization, the defendant must receive written notice of intent to habitualize and the court must confirm the defendant's personal awareness of the possibility and reasonable consequences of habitualization. Watson's allegations were not adequately refuted by the record, requiring reversal and remand.
[1] A defendant must receive written notice of intent to habitualize and be personally aware of the possibility and reasonable consequences of habitualization before a court…
[2] Consequences of habitualization that must be communicated to a defendant include potential impact on eligibility for early release programs.
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“[I]n order for a defendant to be habitualized following a guilty or nolo plea, the following must take place prior to acceptance of the plea: 1) The defendant must be given written notice of intent to habitualize, and 2) the court must confirm that the defendant is personally aware of the possibility and reasonable consequences of habitualization.”
Establishes the mandatory requirements for proper notice before acceptance of a plea that may result in habitualization.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWatson entered a negotiated guilty plea and was subsequently sentenced as a habitual violent felony offender. Watson claims he was not informed prior …
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 Provisional Credits cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Michael Lamar Watson appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief claiming he was not informed of the consequences of being sentenced as a habitual violent felony offender when he entered his guilty plea. Specifically, Watson claims he was not aware that he would lose gain-time, provisional credits, and eligibility for early release. “[I]n order for a defendant to be habitualized following a guilty or nolo plea, the following must take place prior to acceptance of the plea: 1) The defendant must be given written notice of intent to habitualize, and 2) the court must confirm that the defendant is personally aware of the possibility and reasonable consequences of habitualization.” Ashley v. State, 614 So. 2d 486, 490 (Fla.1993). In a footnote, the court further explained that “[t]he defendant should be told of his or her eligibility for habitualization, the maximum habitual offender term for the charged offense, the fact that habitualization may affect the possibility of early release through certain programs, and, where habitual violent offender provisions are implicated, the mandatory minimum term_” Id. at 490, n. 8.
We recognize that Watson entered a negotiated plea. However, neither the plea agreement nor the transcript of the plea colloquy attached to the court’s order refute Watson’s allegations. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings as to the allegation regarding failure to inform Watson of the consequences of habitualization. If the trial court again denies the motion, it must attach portions of the record or files that refute the allegation. If the allegations cannot be refuted, Watson should be allowed to withdraw his plea and thereafter enter a new plea or proceed to trial.
Reversed and remanded.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and FULMER and QUINCE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Summers v. State, 670 So. 2d 1105 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…nd received proper notice of that possibility. Again, without factual basis or record support, we cannot determine whether the second claim is refuted conclusively. We must reverse and remand for further proceedings in accord with Watson v. State, 661 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). On remand, if the trial court again summarily denies the motion, it must attach those portions of the record or files which refute these claims. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and FRANK and A…
-
Daron Taree Black v. State, 698 So. 2d 1370 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…t has held that failure by the trial court to inform a defendant of the consequences of being sentenced as a habitual felony offender, which include gaintime, provisional credit, and eligibility for early release, constitutes error. Watson v. State, 661 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Since the trial court’s order of summary denial of appellant’s motion for postconviction relief did not contain any attachments to refute appellant’s claim, we reverse and remand for further proceedings on this issue. See Hunter…
-
Hampton v. State, 217 So. 3d 1096 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ashley v. State, 614 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 1993)