KENNETH P. FORD, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Kenneth Ford appeals the denial of his petition for writ of error coram nobis, seeking to vacate his 1990 guilty plea to robbery, burglary, and drug possession. The appellate court affirmed the denial, holding that Ford's claims regarding inadequate legal advice about collateral consequences and failure to establish factual basis for the plea were not cognizable grounds for such relief.
The court affirmed the denial of the writ. Ford's claim that his attorney erroneously advised him about sentence-enhancement consequences is not cognizable by writ of error coram nobis, as neither defense counsel nor the trial court must anticipate future recidivism or warn of sentence-enhancing effects of a plea. Additionally, Ford's failure to establish prejudice or manifest injustice following Rule 3.172 precludes relief on his factual basis claim.
[1] A petition for writ of error coram nobis is legally sufficient only if it alleges specific facts of such a vital nature that, had they been known to the trial court, they…
[2] A defendant is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a petition for writ of error coram nobis based on a claim that counsel misadvised him regarding the sentence-enha…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“neither the defense attorney nor the trial court is duty-bound to anticipate the defendant's recidivism and warn him of the sentence-enhancing consequences his plea may have for any future crimes he commits”
Establishes that attorneys have no duty to advise clients about potential sentence enhancement for future crimes based on prior pleas.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn July 1990, Ford pled guilty to robbery, burglary of a structure, and possession of a controlled substance, receiving five years of probation. He wa…
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Kenneth P. Ford appeals from an order denying his petition for writ of error co-ram nobis. We affirm based on the authority of Somintac v. State, 748 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), Bartz v. State, 740 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), Peart v. State, 705 So. 2d 1059 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), Rhodes v. State, 701 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997), and State v. A.J. Fox, 659 So. 2d 1324 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995).
In July of 1990, Ford pled guilty to robbery, burglary of a structure, and possession of a controlled substance. The trial court sentenced Ford to five years of probation. Ford was subsequently incarcerated for life in federal prison and for this reason his state probation was eventually terminated in 1992. Ford did not thereafter appeal or file for any post-conviction relief. In December of 1998, Ford filed a motion for writ of error coram nobis, asserting that his counsel affirmatively misadvised him of the collateral consequences of his plea, and that the trial court failed to determine the factual basis for the plea pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.172. The trial court denied the petition and this appeal followed.
Based on Wood v. State, 750 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 1999), we find the petition timely. Turning to the substance of the petition, Ford claims that his attorney erroneously advised him that his conviction could not be used to enhance any future state or federal sentence. However, neither the defense attorney nor the trial court is duty-bound to anticipate the defendant’s recidivism and warn him of the sentence-enhancing consequences his plea may have for any future crimes he commits, and we conclude that Ford is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the matter. Rhodes v. State, 701 So. 2d 388, 389 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)(“... the possibility of enhanced future sentences has an even more attenuated connection to the disputed plea than do the other collateral consequences deemed sufficiently harmful to the defendant to permit vacation of his plea.”); see also Fox, 659 So. 2d at 1327. Ultimately, however, Ford’s generalized assertion is neither a defect cognizable by writ of error coram nobis nor is it legally sufficient to sustain it. See Fox, 659 So. 2d at 1326, citing Malcolm v. State, 605 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)(in order to be legally sufficient, a petition for writ of error co-ram nobis must allege specific facts of such a vital nature that had they been known to the trial court, they conclusively would have prevented entry of judgment and sentence attacked); Bartz, 740 So. 2d at 1245 (a generalized complaint is not legally sufficient to sustain a writ of error coram nobis); Somintac, 748 So. 2d 301 (same).
Ford’s final assertion, that the trial judge failed to elicit the factual basis for the plea during the plea colloquy, also fails. Not only is this claim not cognizable by writ of error coram nobis, it is not in itself a sufficient basis for the relief requested where the defendant has failed to establish prejudice or manifest injustice following Rule 3.172. Peart, 705 So. 2d at 1063; Fox, 659 So. 2d at 1327-28.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Vrain Scott v. State, 813 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…plea in the event that the defendant commits a new crime in the future. See Woods v. State, 806 So. 2d 621, 621-622 (Fla. 3d DCA) review granted, No. SC02-484 (Fla. Feb. 26, 2002); Collier v. State, 796 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Ford v. State, 753 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Rhodes v. State, 701 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). That is so because the defendant is under a legal [*1027] duty to refrain committing further crimes. It makes no difference whether the defendant is given correct, or incorrect,…
-
Espinosa v. State, 785 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…the merits, Espinosa is entitled to no relief as a matter of law since neither the trial court nor his defense attorney had an obligation to inform him that state convictions could be used to enhance subsequent federal sentences. See Ford v. State, 753 So. 2d 595, 596 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (stating that: “neither the defense attorney nor the trial court is duty-bound to anticipate the defendant’s recidivism and warn him of the sentence-enhancing consequences his plea may have for any future crimes he commits, a…
-
Fernandez v. State, 806 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Woods v. State, 806 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Ford v. State, 753 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000).…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Wood v. State, 750 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 1999)
- Roan Peart v. State, 705 So. 2d 1059 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)
- State v. A.J. FOX, 659 So. 2d 1324 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Rhodes v. State, 701 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
- Vernal Earle Malcolm v. State, 605 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
- Bartz v. State, 740 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- Somintac v. State, 748 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)