RAUL ROY VASQUEZ, 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.
Raul Roy Vasquez appeals the summary denial of his rule 3.850 postconviction motion claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. His attorney allegedly assured him he would receive gain time under the pre-1994 guidelines if he pleaded guilty, but the Department of Corrections refused to grant such time and instead applied the 85% rule, making his plea agreement worthless.
An allegation of detrimental reliance on affirmative misinformation regarding gain time can be a facially sufficient claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court erred in summarily denying the motion without addressing the effectiveness of counsel or conducting an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Vasquez actually relied on his attorney's representations.
[1] A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on affirmative misinformation regarding gain time, upon which the defendant detrimentally relied, is facially sufficien…
[2] A trial court errs in summarily denying a motion for postconviction relief without addressing the effectiveness of counsel when the written plea agreement supports the de…
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“an allegation of detrimental reliance on affirmative misinformation regarding gain time can be a facially sufficient claim of ineffective assistance of counsel”
Establishes the legal standard for evaluating Vasquez's ineffective assistance claim based on Hoch precedent
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceVasquez pleaded guilty to sexual offenses pursuant to a written plea agreement specifying he would be sentenced under pre-1994 guidelines. His defense…
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
[*598] PER CURIAM.
Raul Roy Vasquez appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. In his motion, Mr. Vasquez alleges that he pleaded guilty to several sexual offenses under a written plea agreement that specified he would be sentenced pursuant to the pre-1994 guidelines. Mr. Vasquez alleges that his attorney was ineffective because he affirmatively advised Mr. Vasquez that if he entered into the plea agreement he would receive gain time and would not be subject to the 85% rule.1 He further alleges that the Department of Corrections has refused to give him the relevant gain time and has subjected him to the 85% rule. Finally, he claims that he would not have entered this plea had he understood he would not receive the gain time. In its order denying the motion, the trial court recognized that Mr. Vasquez alleged ineffective assistance of counsel and acknowledged that the written plea agreement supported his representations. However, the trial court summarily denied the motion without addressing the effectiveness of counsel, reasoning that the award of gain time is solely a function of the Department of Corrections.
This case is controlled by Hoch v. State, 679 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996), in which this court ruled that an allegation of detrimental reliance on affirmative misinformation regarding gain time can be a facially sufficient claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. On remand, unless the case file and record conclusively demonstrate that Mr. Vasquez is not entitled to relief, an evidentiary hearing shall be conducted. If the trial court again concludes that summary denial is proper, it must attach to its order those portions of the ease file and record which refute his claim.
Reversed and remanded.
FRANK, A.C.J., and PATTERSON and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur. . See § 944.275(4)(b)(3), Fla. Stat. (1997).