LUIS M. AGUILAR, 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.
A defendant appeals the denial of his Rule 3.850 postconviction motion, claiming he was misadvised by defense counsel regarding gaintime eligibility. The court holds that the claim, though raised in an amended motion outside the two-year limitations period, qualifies as a timely enlargement of a previously raised issue and remands for an evidentiary hearing.
The amended 3.850 motion is not time-barred because it qualifies as an enlargement of an issue raised in the timely December 15, 1997 motion. The defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his claim that counsel misrepresented his eligibility for gaintime, as attacks on the voluntary and intelligent character of a plea must be addressed through 3.850 motions.
[1] Misrepresentations by defense counsel regarding eligibility for gain time can be a basis for postconviction relief.
[2] An attack on the voluntary and intelligent character of a guilty plea must be brought by a timely motion.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“misrepresentations by counsel as to length of sentence or eligibility for gain time can be basis for postconviction relief in form of leave to withdraw guilty plea”
Establishes the legal standard that counsel misadvice on gaintime can support postconviction relief
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAguilar entered a guilty plea that became final on March 31, 1996. On December 15, 1997, he filed a 3.850 motion citing misadvice by defense counsel 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 Timeliness Of Postconviction Motions cases and more on FLexlaw
NESBITT, Senior Judge.
The opinion of this Court filed on March 15, 2000, is vacated and this opinion is substituted in its stead.
In this appeal from the denial of a 3.850 motion, defendant argues that he was misadvised by defense counsel regarding gaintime and there is nothing in the record to refute this claim.1 See State v. Leroux, 689 So. 2d 235 (Fla.1996)(concluding misrepresentations by counsel as to length of sentence or eligibility for gain time can be basis for postconviction relief in form of leave to withdraw guilty plea). In Skidmore v. State, 688 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997), this court held that an attack on the voluntary and intelligent character of the plea is a claim that must be brought by a timely 3.850 motion. While defendant argues he is entitled to a hearing on this issue, there is some question as to whether the point was timely raised.
In Brown v. State, 596 So. 2d 1026 (Fla.1992), the Supreme Court concluded that the two year time limitation applicable to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 claims does not bar the enlargement of an issue raised in a timely 3.850 motion. Defendant’s plea became final on March 31, 1996, thirty days after his plea was entered. On December 15, 1997, defendant filed a 3.850 motion. That motion was not ruled on, but cited to Leroux, and referred to certain misadvice by defense counsel. On August 18, 1999, defendant filed an “amended” 3.850 motion and raised the issue of misrepresentations by counsel as to eligibility for gain time. Aguilar argues that as an amendment to an already raised issue, the point should be considered timely raised. Viewing the August 18, 1999 motion in this regard, we conclude the matter is not time barred and remand for an evidentiary hearing on this issue.
Accordingly, the cause is reversed and remanded for the limited purpose of consideration of defendant’s claim of misrepresentations by counsel as to length of sentence and eligibility for gain time. As to the other issues raised, we find them without merit.2
. The court reporter has executed an affidavit stating that there is no stenographic notes for
. As to any claim that defendant did not receive the gaintime awarded in the court’s order, this is not a proper subject for a postcon-viction proceeding; defendant's proper course would be to address that problem through administrative hearing, or if necessary, through mandamus proceeding. See e.g. Bland v. State, 664 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Bowles v. State, 647 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Aguilar v. State, 807 So. 2d 804 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…PER CURIAM. After conducting the evidentiary hearing ordered in Aguilar v. State, 756 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000), upon the “defendant’s claim of misrepresentations by counsel as to the length of sentence and eligibility for gain time,” Aguilar, 756 So. 2d at 258, the trial court found that no such misrepresentation had occurred. We find no e…
-
Denmark v. State, 800 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…the trial court found that Denmark’s motion was filed pursuant to Wood v. State, 750 So. 2d 592 (Fla.1999), and that Wood’s two-year window for relief expired May 27, 2001; thus, the trial court denied the motion as untimely. In Aguilar v. State, 756 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000), the Third District addressed the timeliness of an amended motion for postconviction relief. The court concluded that the amended motion, so long as it related back to an issue already raised, gained the benefit of the date of the…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Leroux, 689 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 1996)
- Skidmore v. State, 688 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
- Brown v. State, 596 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 1992)
- Bowles v. State, 647 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
- Ned Bland v. State, 664 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)