MICHAEL P. SZYMANOWSKI, 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.
Michael Szymanowski appealed the summary denial of his rule 3.850 post-conviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of his first ineffective assistance claim regarding rejection of a plea offer, but reversed and remanded on his second claim regarding failure to investigate and present an intoxication defense.
The court affirmed the trial court's denial of the first ineffective assistance claim because appellant failed to demonstrate that counsel's advice fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. However, the court reversed on the second claim, finding that the trial court erred in summarily denying relief based on appellant's failure to sufficiently allege facts supporting the intoxication defense and in finding that acceptance of a plea waived consideration of ineffective assistance claims related to affirmative defenses.
[1] A defendant's rejection of a plea offer, without more, does not establish ineffective assistance of counsel.
[2] A defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel's advice to reject a plea offer requires a showing of specific misinformation or misadvice.
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“Misinformation by counsel affecting a defendant's decision to accept a plea may constitute ineffective assistance of counsel under certain circumstances.”
Establishes that counsel must provide accurate information affecting plea decisions, but requires specific showing of misinformation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was charged with two counts of attempted murder on his ex-girlfriend and her boyfriend. The State initially offered a ten-year sentence, whi…
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 Voluntary Intoxication Defense cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was charged with two counts of attempted murder on his ex-girlfriend and her boyfriend. Initially, the State offered appellant a sentence of ten years imprisonment in exchange for a plea, which he rejected on the basis of his attorney’s advice. This plea offer was later withdrawn and the State offered a negotiated plea of twelve years followed by ten years probation.1 Appellant accepted this offer, entered a plea of nolo contendere and was sentenced in accordance with his plea. After his sentencing, appellant filed a rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief alleging, among other things, ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, he alleged his counsel was ineffective because, one, he misadvised him to reject the earlier plea offer and, two, he failed to assert an affirmative defense of intoxication, inform him of this defense and investigate and interview witnesses who would have confirmed his intoxication. The trial court summarily denied his motion. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
As to appellant’s first claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, we agree with the trial court that appellant is not entitled to relief. Misinformation by counsel affecting a defendant’s decision to accept a plea may constitute ineffective assistance of counsel under certain circumstances. See Steel v. State, 684 So. 2d 290, 291-92 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). However, appellant has not indicated the basis of any misinformation or misadvice (i.e., what erroneous information he received from counsel which caused him to accept the plea offer and not proceed to trial). He merely alleges counsel told him to reject the plea, which he did. This, without more, does not demonstrate that counsel fell below the “objective” standard of reasonableness under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). See Gonzales v. State, 691 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)(rejecting a plea and proceeding to trial is a tactical or strategic decision, which cannot be the basis of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.)
As to his second claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, appellant alleged he informed counsel of his intoxication at the time he committed the offenses, but his attorney failed to interview witnesses and investigate the circumstances of his alleged intoxication, prepare an voluntary intoxication defense and advise him that intoxication can present a defense. He further alleged that had he been advised by counsel of this defense, he would not have accepted the plea and would have proceeded to trial. The trial court rejected this claim because appellant failed to sufficiently allege a factual basis for the intoxication defense. The trial court also found no merit to this claim because appellant chose to accept a plea and waived his right to raise affirmative defenses. We disagree and reverse and remand on this issue. See Smith v. State, 719 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Bartley v. State, 689 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Jenkins v. State, 625 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); and Paulk v. State, 723 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).
The other issues raised on appeal are without merit and we affirm the summary denial of appellant’s 3.850 motion on those issues. As for the second ineffective assistance issue discussed above, we reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing or the attachment of portions of the record conclusively showing appellant is not entitled to relief.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.
WARNER, C.J., KLEIN and STEVENSON, JJ., concur. . The circumstances behind this do not appear in the record, however, it appears from appellant’s brief that an assistant attorney general made the initial plea offer, but was later replaced in the case by another lawyer. Irrespective of the circumstances behind the revised plea offer, they are not material to our disposition of the case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Morgan v. State, 991 So. 2d 835 (Fla. 2008)…ppellant could prove his allegation, it would not entitle him to relief. Gonzales, 691 So. 2d at 604. After Gonzales, in Morgan, the case that is now before this Court, Smith v. State, 825 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), and Szymanowski v. State, 771 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), the court cited with approval its earlier Gonzales opinion. Specifically, in Smith and Szymanowski, the court cited Gonzales for the proposition that a claim involving the rejection of a plea and proceeding to trial is tactical…
-
Smith v. State, 825 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…lea offer. Id. We note that it is not Smith’s position that counsel failed to relay the offer, but rather that counsel failed to fully explore the plea in connection with the lack of defense to the lesser-included offense. In Szymanowski v. State, 771 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), this court recognized that misinformation by counsel affecting a defendant’s decision to accept a plea may constitute ineffective assistance of counsel under certain circumstances. However, we conclude that merely alleging that…
-
Wilson v. State, 901 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…they entered a plea because counsel failed to inform them of a viable defense available if they proceeded to trial. See Seraphin v. State, 706 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Smith v. State, 719 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Szymanowski v. State, 771 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). The record reflects that defendant was charged in case number 99-1797 with armed burglary, two counts of robbery with a firearm, and another count of burglary; he was charged in ease number 99-3008 with one count of robbery wit…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (11 total)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984)
- Steel v. State, 684 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Sycamore v. Fla. Atl. Univ., 691 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Gonzales v. State, 691 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Smith v. State, 719 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Ervin Alphonso Bartley v. State, 689 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- Paleno Estrada v. State, 689 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- In the Interest of J.H. v. State, 625 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- Jenkins v. State, 625 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- Brantley v. State, 723 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)