ROBERT L. BUTLER 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.
Robert L. Butler appealed the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief challenging the validity of his plea as a habitual felony offender. The court reversed and remanded, holding that a defendant must be informed that habitualization may affect eligibility for early release before accepting a plea.
The court held that before accepting a plea to a charge for which a defendant may be habitualized, the court must confirm that the defendant is aware of the possibility and reasonable consequences of habitualization, including effects on eligibility for early release. The trial court's reliance on the general rule that courts need not warn of all collateral consequences was error in light of Ashley v. State.
[1] A defendant's plea is involuntary if the court and counsel fail to inform the defendant of the possibility and reasonable consequences of habitualization, including poten…
[2] The issue of whether a defendant was properly informed of the collateral consequences of habitualization is a postconviction issue, absent a timely motion to withdraw the…
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“before a court may accept a plea to a charge for which the defendant may be habitualized, the court must confirm that the defendant is aware of the possibility and reasonable consequences of habitualization. These include the possibility that habitualization may affect the defendant's eligibility for early release.”
Establishes the court's holding regarding what information must be conveyed to a defendant before accepting a plea involving potential habitualization.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceButler pleaded no contest to attempted first-degree murder and felon in possession of a firearm after receiving notice of the State's intent to seek h…
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
[*795] PER CURIAM.
Robert L. Butler appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 8.850. We reverse and remand this case for further consideration.
After receiving the State’s notice of intent to seek habitual felony offender sanctions, Butler pleaded no contest to attempted first-degree murder and to being a felon in possession of a firearm in one case, and to failure to appear in another case. He was sentenced as a habitual felony offender to fifteen years’ incarceration in the former case, and to a five-year guidelines sentence in the latter. In his motion for postconviction relief, Butler contended his plea was involuntary under Ashley v. State, 614 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 1993) (holding the State was required to serve written notice of intent to seek habitual offender sanctions prior to a defendant’s plea), because the trial court and his counsel failed to inform him that he would be ineligible for gain time and parole release prior to the court accepting his plea. Butler’s motion asserts that had he known of these consequences of a habitual offender sentence, he would have elected to go to trial rather than enter a plea.
The circuit court’s order denying relief relied on Simmons v. State, 611 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), for the proposition that neither the trial court nor counsel is required to warn a defendant of every conceivable collateral consequence of a plea. However, in Ashley the supreme court held that before a court may accept a plea to a charge for which the defendant may be habitualized, the court must confirm that the defendant is aware of the possibility and reasonable consequences of habitualization. These include the possibility that habitualization may affect the defendant’s eligibility for early release. Ashley, 614 So. 2d at 490, n. 8.
In State v. Thompson, 735 So. 2d 482 (Fla.1999), the court determined that, absent a timely motion to withdraw a plea, the issue of whether a defendant was properly informed of the collateral consequences of habitualization was a postcon-viction issue. Therefore, Butler properly raised this issue in his motion for postcon-viction relief. See Saling v. State, 705 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).
On remand, the circuit court shall reconsider this claim and either deny it by attaching a record sufficient to refute it, or hold an evidentiary hearing on the claim.
Reversed and remanded.
PARKER, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND and NORTHCUTT, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hampton v. State, 217 So. 3d 1096 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…that ineligibility for gain time or early release through certain programs is a direct consequence of a plea. We also certify conflict with the decisions of the Second District in Parker v. State, 808 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), Butler v. State, 764 So. 2d 794, 795 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), Black v. State, 698 So. 2d 1370, 1371 [*1100] (Fla. 2d DCA 1997), and Watson v. State, 661 So. 2d 72, 72 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). We agree with the postconviction court that Appellant did not demonstrate how he was prejudiced by…
-
Lerandros L. Smith v. State, 126 So. 3d 397 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…nt being sentenced as a habitual felony offender. Williams v. State, 2 So. 3d 1089, 1089-90 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009); Murphy v. State, 952 So. 2d 1214, 1215-16 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); Parker v. State, 808 So. 2d 264, 264 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Butler v. State, 764 So. 2d 794, 795 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Black v. State, 698 So. 2d 1370, 1371 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Watson v. State, 661 So. 2d 72, 72 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Affirmed. Conflict certified. DAMOORGIAN, C.J., GERBER and LEVINE, JJ., concur.…
-
Marckman v. State, 997 So. 2d 1275 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…because the court failed to comply with rule 3.172(c) was cognizable in a rule 3.850 motion); Youngblood v. State, 930 So. 2d 852, 852 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (holding that an involuntary plea claim is cognizable in a rule 3.850 motion); Butler v. State, 764 So. 2d 794, 795 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (“absent a timely motion to withdraw a plea, the issue of whether a defendant was properly informed of the collateral consequences of habitualization was a postconviction issue”). Thus, the postconviction court erred in denyi…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ashley v. State, 614 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 1993)
- Simmons v. State, 611 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- State v. Thompson, 735 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 1999)
- Saling v. State, 705 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)