JEFFREY JOHNSON, 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.
Jeffrey Johnson appeals the denial of his motion to withdraw a guilty plea, claiming his attorney gave him erroneous advice about the sentence he would receive. The appellate court reverses the summary denial and remands for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether counsel was ineffective.
The court reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing, holding that the trial court erred in summarily denying the motion because the court failed to specifically address whether promises about the sentence were made to Johnson, and the fact that Johnson was aware of the maximum sentence does not refute his claim that counsel assured him the actual sentence would be much less.
[1] A defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a postconviction claim that counsel provided erroneous advice regarding the percentage of a sentence that would be re…
[2] A defendant's prior experience with mandatory minimum sentences does not necessarily overcome a sworn assertion that counsel assured him he would only be required to serv…
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“To defeat a claim that a defendant entered a plea based on erroneous advice of trial counsel concerning the length of the prison sentence that will be imposed, the court must have addressed this specific issue with the defendant.”
Establishes the standard for reviewing claims of ineffective assistance regarding sentence advice, requiring the trial court to specifically address the issue with the defendant.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn April 30, 1997, Johnson pleaded guilty to one count of lewd and lascivious act on a child and no contest to seven other sexual offenses, receiving …
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 Involuntary Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Jeffrey Johnson appeals the summary denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing.
On April 30, 1997, Johnson pleaded guilty to one count of lewd and lascivious act on a child and no contest to seven other sexual offenses. He was sentenced to thirty years in prison, to be followed by two consecutive fifteen-year terms of probation. Johnson alleges that the State offered him a fifteen-year prison sentence to be followed by fifteen years of probation, and that his attorney advised him to refuse the offer. According to Johnson, his attorney assured him that if he entered an open plea to the charges, he would receive no more than two years of house arrest, to be followed by probation. Johnson seeks to withdraw his plea, claiming that the erroneous advice of his counsel rendered his plea involuntary.
The trial court denied Johnson’s motion, reciting in the order that the plea colloquy and signed plea form refuted his claim. The order described the colloquy in which Johnson was questioned as to whether any promises were made to him to induce him to plead, and Johnson answered negative ly. Although a portion of the plea colloquy is attached to the order, it does not address whether any promises were made to Johnson and does not refute his claim.
Even if the court had questioned Johnson as to whether any promises were made to him, the fact that this inquiry occurred would not refute his claim. See State v. Leroux, 689 So. 2d 235 (Fla.1996). To defeat a claim that a defendant entered a plea based on erroneous advice of trial counsel concerning the length of the prison sentence that will be imposed, the court must have addressed this specific issue with the defendant. See id. at 238.
The trial court also found that because Johnson was informed prior to his plea of what his potential sentence was, his claim was without merit. However, Johnson’s awareness of the maximum sentence he faced does not vitiate his claim that his attorney had assured him that his actual sentence would be much less than the maximum. Accordingly, an evidentiary hearing must be conducted to determine whether counsel was ineffective and gave erroneous advice concerning the potential sentence faced by Johnson.
Reversed and remanded.
BLUE, A.C.J., and FULMER and CASANUEVA, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gusow v. State, 6 So. 3d 699 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…faced only five years for a violation of probation. See Scheele v. State, 953 So. 2d 782, 785 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Hill v. State, 895 So. 2d 1122, 1124 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); contra Medina v. State, 920 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); Johnson v. State, 757 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). . We recognize that the Third District Court of Appeal has held that "the maximum penalty that could be imposed if community control/probation is violated is a direct consequence of” a plea to two years in prison followed by two…
-
Chandler v. State, 843 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…. In order for the record to refute Chandler’s claim that he relied on counsel’s misadvice, the court must have inquired as to whether Chandler’s counsel made him promises regarding the length of sentence that he would receive. See Johnson v. State, 757 So. 2d 586, 587 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (citing State v. Leroux, 689 So. 2d 235 (Fla.1996)). Since the record does not indicate that the court addressed this specific issue with Chandler, we reverse and remand this claim for the trial court to conduct an evidentiar…
-
ELY v. State, 13 So. 3d 167 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…ating factors.” To support this contention, the court cited Scheele v. State, 953 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). While the postconviction court is correct in its reading of Scheele, such is not the law in the Second District. See Johnson v. State, 757 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). In Johnson, “[t]he [postconviction] court ... found that because Johnson was informed prior to his plea of what his poten [*169] tial sentence was, his claim [that counsel’s misadvice rendered his plea involuntary] was without me…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Leroux, 689 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 1996)