AARON STOTT, 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.
The appellate court reviewed a lower court's denial of a motion for post-conviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel. The court affirmed in part and reversed in part, remanding for further proceedings on one claim.
The court held that the trial court erred in denying relief on the claim that counsel provided ineffective assistance by misinforming the appellant about the potential sentence, as the record did not conclusively refute this claim. However, the court affirmed the denial of relief on other claims of ineffective assistance.
[1] A defendant may be entitled to post-conviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel if counsel provides demonstrably false advice regarding potential sentenc…
[2] A trial court must either attach record evidence conclusively refuting a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel or conduct an evidentiary hearing.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Nothing in the plea colloquy or in the state’s response to the motion below conclusively demonstrates that appellant is entitled to no relief on this portion of his claim.”
Establishes the basis for reversing the trial court's denial of relief on the sentencing misinformation claim.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Stott claimed his attorney incorrectly advised him about a potential 15-year sentence if he went to trial, leading him to accept a plea deal…
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 Right To Testify cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Aaron Stott appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion for post-conviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel. In his motion, appellant contended that before he entered his plea, his attorney told him that “if he proceeded to trial, he would receive an additional prison sentence of no less than fifteen (15) years for the crime of attempted second-degree murder.” Appellant alleged that as a direct result of this statement, he elected not to proceed to trial and to accept the state’s plea offer.
Appellant claimed that defense counsel’s statement was not true, since the maximum sentence he could have received under the sentencing guidelines was 107.5 months. Appellant alleged that he would not have entered into the plea had he understood that he was not a candidate for the mandatory fifteen year sentence. Nothing in the plea colloquy or in the state’s response to the motion below conclusively demonstrates that appellant is entitled to no relief on this portion of his claim. See State v. Leroux, 689 So. 2d 235, 236 (Fla.1996); Jones v. State, 680 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Choi v. State, 692 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); compare Bond v. State, 695 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (any misunderstanding the defendant may have had about the plea after speaking with his lawyer was corrected by the information the trial court provided during the plea hearing).
We reverse that portion of the trial court’s order directed at the issue set forth in this paragraph and remand for the trial court to either attach those portions of the record that conclusively demonstrate that the appellant is entitled to no relief, or, otherwise, to conduct an evidentiary hearing.
As to that portion of appellant’s claim of ineffectiveness of counsel for failing to explain that appellant had the right to a jury trial and to give testimony in his own behalf, we affirm the order of the trial court denying relief.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.
GLICKSTEIN, POLEN and GROSS, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Leroux, 689 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 1996)
- Bond v. State, 695 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- Jones v. State, 680 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Choi v. State, 692 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)