THOMAS E. CRISS, 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 court reversed the summary denial of postconviction relief where counsel allegedly misadvised the defendant about gain time eligibility, holding that an evidentiary hearing is required unless the record conclusively demonstrates no entitlement to relief.
When a defendant alleges counsel misadvised him about gain time and provisional credits affecting his plea decision, summary denial of postconviction relief is improper unless the record conclusively demonstrates he is not entitled to relief.
[1] Erroneous advice by counsel regarding a defendant's eligibility for gain time and provisional credits may constitute ineffective assistance of counsel warranting withdraw…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThomas Criss entered a plea agreement but later alleged his counsel misadvised him about his eligibility for gain time and provisional credits, claimi…
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 Eligibility cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Thomas Criss appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief which includes the allegation that counsel misadvised him about his eligibility for gain time and provisional credits. Criss states that he would not have entered into the plea agreement but for such misinformation. Such erroneous advice may constitute ineffective assistance of counsel which might entitle an appellant to withdraw his plea. See Carmichael v. State, 631 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Young v. State, 604 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992).
The trial court has failed to rebut Criss’ allegation by merely attaching to its order the ease progress docket and the judgment and sentence. Denial of the motion on this single issue is reversed. On remand, unless the case file and record conclusively demonstrate that Criss is not entitled to relief, an evidentiary hearing shall be conducted. If the court again concludes that summary denial is proper, it must attach to its order those portions of the case file and record which refute Criss’ claims. In all other respects the denial of the motion for postcon-viction relief is affirmed.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded.
PATTERSON, A.C.J., and' ALTENBERND and WHATLEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wilson v. State, 760 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…[*238] numerous charges against him but for his counsel’s erroneous advice concerning the amount of gain time for which Wilson would be eligible. This is a facially sufficient claim that is not conclusively refuted by the record. See Criss v. State, 713 So. 2d 1078 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for an evi-dentiary hearing. The trial court denied Wilson’s claim based on the plea colloquy during which Wilson indicated that his plea was not based on any promises or threats. Wilson’s ack…
Authorities Cited
- Carmichael v. State, 631 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Young v. State, 604 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)