DENNIS MICHAEL PRITCHARD, 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.
Court reversed summary denial of post-conviction relief where defendant claimed counsel advised that "mercy" was a valid basis for downward departure from sentencing guidelines, requiring an evidentiary hearing to determine prejudice.
A defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a claim that counsel advised him that "mercy" was a valid basis for downward sentencing departure when the trial court explicitly stated it lacked authority to depart without valid reasons.
[1] Counsel's advice that "mercy" constitutes valid grounds for downward sentencing departure below guidelines may constitute ineffective assistance requiring evidentiary hea…
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 intelligenceDefendant Pritchard received a guideline sentence after a plea agreement provided that the trial court could impose sentence above or below guidelines…
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 Prejudice Analysis cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse an order summarily denying post-conviction relief and remand for an evidentiary hearing. Appellant asserts that he was advised by counsel that the trial court could depart downward from a guideline sentence on the basis of “mercy,” patently not a valid basis for departure.
We note that the record reflects that the court considered all mitigating factors raised in the PSI and at sentencing (in accordance with the plea agreement that a PSI would be prepared and the court could impose sentence above the guidelines based on what the court heard by way of aggravation or below the guidelines “if I hear something by way of mitigating circumstances that would persuade me that there are reasons to go below the minimum sentence”).
We also recognize that even if Appellant can demonstrate that counsel advised him that “mercy” was a reason for a trial court’s imposing a sentence below the guidelines, any prejudice might be speculative if the court considered all mitigating factors addressed by the PSI and the defense, regardless of whether they would constitute valid grounds for deviating, as the state made no objection to any mitigating factors raised.
Nevertheless, the sentencing transcript reflects that the court specifically determined that it had no authority to depart from the guidelines without valid reasons for departure, and found no reason to do so. As a result, the court imposed the recommended guideline sentence.
Therefore, we cannot resolve on this record that Appellant was not prejudiced by mis-advice of counsel.
STONE, C.J., WARNER and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.