SILAS GILYARD, 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.
Silas Gilyard appeals the denial of his motion for postconviction relief, claiming his guilty plea to a violation of probation was not knowing and voluntary because his trial counsel misinformed him about the maximum sentence he could receive. The appellate court found the trial court failed to adequately address Gilyard's allegations and reversed, ordering either conclusive refutation of his claim or an evidentiary hearing.
Allegations of erroneous advice regarding the maximum sentence are sufficient to cast doubt on the voluntary character of a guilty plea. The trial court's reliance on the defendant's statements at sentencing that the plea was knowing and voluntary does not conclusively refute allegations that counsel affirmatively misinformed the defendant about sentencing exposure.
[1] A guilty plea is not knowing and voluntary if the defendant was affirmatively misinformed by counsel regarding the potential sentence.
[2] Allegations of erroneous advice from counsel concerning the length of a potential prison sentence are sufficient to challenge the voluntary nature of a guilty plea.
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“Allegations of erroneous advice regarding the amount of time a defendant could spend in prison are sufficient 'to cast doubt on the voluntary character' of a guilty plea.”
Establishes the legal standard that counsel's misinformation about sentencing exposure undermines the voluntariness of a plea.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGilyard entered a guilty plea to a violation of probation charge. His trial counsel allegedly affirmatively misinformed him regarding the length of se…
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 Knowing And Voluntary Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Silas Gilyard appeals the denial of his motion for posteonviction relief made pursuant to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.850. He alleges that his guilty plea to a violation of probation charge was not knowing and voluntary because his trial counsel affirmatively misinformed him as to the length of sentence he could receive. He also claims that had he known this information was erroneous he would not have pled guilty. The trial court denied appellant’s motion by attaching portions of the plea colloquy which indicate appellant entered his admission to a violation of probation charge voluntarily. It appears from the record, however, that the trial court failed to refute appellant’s facially sufficient claim that his plea was not informed and that his attorney provided insufficient assistance of counsel by misinforming him of the maximum sentence he could receive.
Allegations of erroneous advice regarding the amount of time a defendant could spend in prison are sufficient “to cast doubt on the voluntary character” of a guilty plea. Eady v. State, 604 So. 2d 659, 561 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); appeal after remand, 622 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). See also James v. State, 670 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).
Additionally, where a petitioner alleges that defense counsel affirmatively misinformed him as to the amount of time petitioner could spend in prison, the petitioner’s oral statements at the sentencing hearing acknowledging that the plea is knowing and voluntary do not conclusively refute petitioner’s allegations. Eady, supra. See Brown v. State, 647 So. 2d 197, 198 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). If Gilyard’s allegations prove to be true, it would appear that his attorney has failed to provide adequate assistance of counsel.
We find that the trial court has failed to refute appellant’s allegation that his plea was entered involuntarily based on misinformation from his counsel regarding the maximum time he could serve for his admission of violation of probation. Therefore, on remand we order the trial court to either attach portions of the record conclusively refuting Gilyard’s entitlement to relief, or to hold an evidentiary hearing regarding appellant’s claim on this issue.
We reverse and remand for the trial court to proceed in accordance with this opinion.
BOOTH, WOLF and BENTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bond v. State, 695 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…to advise the defendant he was ineligible for control release); Hamlin v. State, 627 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (the record did not refute an allegation that defense counsel promised the defendant he would not be habitualized); Gilyard v. State, 675 So. 2d 950 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (the record did not refute a claim that defense counsel failed to inform the defendant of the possible maximum sentence). Here we have a different situation. Any misunderstanding the defendant may have had about the plea after sp…
-
Johnson v. State, 776 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…of erroneous advice regarding the amount of time a defendant could spend in prison are sufficient to cast doubt on the voluntary character of a guilty plea’ ” and constitute a sufficient claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Gilyard v. State, 675 So. 2d 950, 951 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Furthermore, where a movant alleges defense counsel affirmatively misinformed him as to the amount of time he could spend in prison, his oral statements during the plea colloquy that the plea is knowing and voluntary do not…
-
Childers v. State, 782 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…vice regarding the amount of time a defendant could spend in prison are sufficient to cast doubt on the voluntary character of a guilty plea” and automatically constitute a sufficient claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. See Gilyard v. State, 675 So. 2d 950, 951 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). This allegation, combined with the allegation that the appellant would not have pled had he been correctly informed, is enough to require either attachment of those portions of the record conclusively refuting the allegatio…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Eady v. State, 622 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- Brown v. State, 647 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- James v. State, 670 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)