ALFREDO MORALES, 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 held that a defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel regarding failure to convey a plea offer and failure to investigate witnesses.
The defendant appealed the summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to convey a…
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 Plea Offer Communication cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Alfredo Morales appeals the summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, in which he raised three grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel. We reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing on two claims.
Morales alleges that defense counsel failed to adequately convey to him a favorable plea offer made immediately before trial. The record does not show that defense counsel communicated the offer to Morales as required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.171(c), or that counsel directed the interpreter to assist Morales during the discussions concerning the plea offer. Morales claims that he has little understanding of the English language. The fact that he was in the courtroom during the colloquy between his counsel and the state attorney concerning the plea does not distinguish the instant case from Rosa v. State, 712 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Therefore, an evidentiary hearing must be conducted on this claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
An evidentiary hearing is also required to address Morales’s allegation that his trial counsel failed to investigate witnesses associated with his claim of self-defense. Adams v. State, 696 So. 2d 943 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). Morales did not identify the witnesses by name. However, he claims that he gave his attorney sufficient information to locate the witnesses when he told counsel that they were employees of the bar where the crime occurred.
The other issues raised are without merit and as to those we affirm the summary denial. As for the claims of ineffective assistance discussed above, we reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.
DELL, KLEIN and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Reyna v. State, 18 So. 3d 1131 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…me credit, and/or eligible prison gain tim,e credit. See State v. Leroux, 689 So. 2d 235, 236 (Fla.1996) “Misadvice as to gain time or the sentence actual length is a cognizable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.” See also Morales v. State, 731 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 4DCA 1999) “Counsel’s failure to direct an interpreter to assist defendant during discussions concerning the plea offer held sufficient to warrant evidentiary hearing.” Id. at 91, keynote [1]. [*1136] 18). Let the record reflect that Defendant…
-
Earnest Barnes v. State, 757 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…rement before the trial court is required to conduct an evidentiary hearing. It is sufficient for Barnes to make a brief statement of the facts to support his claim. See Cunningham v. State, 748 So. 2d 328, 329 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Morales v. State, 731 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Barnes also claims that his counsel was ineffective in failing to investigate his claim that he was coerced into confessing by the police officers who interrogated him. Although Barnes does not specify the officers who coerced…
-
ASH v. State, 767 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…t this testimony. It was not necessary for appellant to identify the witness. See Gaskin v. State, 737 So. 2d 509 (Fla.1999); Barnes v. State, 757 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Zonecol v. State, 740 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Morales v. State, 731 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Appellant’s second claim, that defense counsel was ineffective based on mis-advice regarding the consequences of going to trial, was also facially sufficient. Contrary to the state’s argument below, appellant does not allege c…
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
- Rosa v. State, 712 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- State v. Edilberto Colon, 696 So. 2d 943 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Adams v. State, 696 So. 2d 943 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)