ERIC A. WILSON, 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 postconviction relief motion where defendant claimed counsel gave erroneous advice about gain time eligibility, finding the claim facially sufficient and not conclusively refuted by the record.
A defendant's claim that counsel provided erroneous advice regarding gain time eligibility is facially sufficient and not conclusively refuted by a plea colloquy in which the defendant denied being induced by promises or threats.
[1] A defendant's acknowledgment during a plea colloquy that the plea was not induced by promises or threats does not conclusively refute a postconviction claim that counsel…
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 intelligence“Wilson's acknowledgment that he was not induced to enter a plea by promises or threats does not defeat his claim.”
Court explaining that the plea colloquy does not conclusively refute the gain time claim.
Eric Wilson entered a plea to numerous charges. He later filed a postconviction motion claiming he would not have pleaded guilty but for his counsel's…
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 Erroneous Advice Of Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
- Eric A. Wilson appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Wilson asserts that he would not have entered a plea to the numerous charges against him but for his counsel’s erroneous advice concerning the amount of gain time for which Wilson would be eligible. This is a facially sufficient claim that is not conclusively refuted by the record. See Criss v. State, 713 So. 2d 1078 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing.
The trial court denied Wilson’s claim based on the plea colloquy during which Wilson indicated that his plea was not based on any promises or threats. Wilson’s acknowledgment that he was not induced to enter a plea by promises or threats does not defeat his claim. See State v. Leroux, 689 So. 2d 235 (Fla.1996). For Wilson’s claim to be conclusively refuted by the record, the trial court would have had to inquire of Wilson during the plea colloquy whether any promises were made to him concerning the amount of time he would serve on his sentence. See Carmichael v. State, 631 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).
Reversed and remanded.
BLUE, A.C.J., and FULMER and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Leroux, 689 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 1996)
- Carmichael v. State, 631 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Criss v. State, 713 So. 2d 1078 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)