JAMES C. RIGGINS, JR., 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.
Appellant challenges the trial court's summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief, alleging his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate whether his first DUI conviction was uncounseled and thus invalid for enhancement purposes. The court reverses and remands, finding that an uncounseled prior conviction cannot be used to enhance a current DUI charge when the defendant was entitled to counsel.
A prior conviction is invalid for enhancement purposes if it was uncounseled and the defendant was entitled to counsel. The trial court erred in summarily denying appellant's motion for postconviction relief without either attaching portions of the record that conclusively refute the claim or conducting an evidentiary hearing.
[1] A prior conviction is invalid for purposes of enhancement if the conviction was uncounseled and the defendant was entitled to counsel in the prior proceedings.
[2] A defendant is entitled to counsel for any nonpetty criminal offense, or whenever the defendant is convicted of an offense and is actually subjected to a term of imprison…
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“a prior conviction is invalid for purposes of enhancement if the conviction was uncounseled and the defendant was entitled to counsel in the prior proceedings”
Establishes the legal standard that uncounseled prior convictions cannot be used to enhance current charges when defendant was entitled to counsel
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 convicted of a fourth DUI offense, which was enhanced to a third-degree felony based on three prior DUI convictions. Appellant alleges t…
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 Uncounseled Convictions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant challenges the trial court’s order summarily denying his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We reverse and remand for further proceedings on the appellant’s allegation that trial counsel was ineffective for failure to investigate and to discover that his first DUI conviction was uncounseled, and thus, the first conviction was invalid for enhancing his fourth DUI to a third-degree felony.
Section 316.193(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1997), provides that a defendant should be charged with a third-degree felony for a DUI if he has three prior DUI convictions. However, a prior conviction is invalid for purposes of enhancement if the conviction was uncounseled and the defendant was entitled to counsel in the prior proceedings. See State v. Beach, 592 So. 2d 237 (Fla.1992). A defendant is entitled to counsel for any “nonpetty criminal offense, that is, one .punishable by more than six months’ imprisonment, ... or whenever the defendant is convicted of an offense and is actually subjected to a term of imprisonment.” Id. at 237. The appellant alleges under oath that he received a term of imprisonment for his first DUI, that he was indigent at the time of the first conviction, and that he did not receive counsel or waive his right to counsel. The appellant’s motion tracks the supreme court’s holding in Beach and the holding in Davis v. State, 710 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). In the instant case, as in Davis, the appellant alleges that if trial counsel had properly investigated the prior DUI conviction, counsel would have discovered that it was invalid for enhancement purposes. The appellant alleges that if he had known that the prior uncounseled DUI conviction could not be used to enhance the current DUI, he would not have pled to receive five years’ imprisonment.
This case is remanded with instructions for the trial court to attach those portions of the record which conclusively refute appellant’s claim for relief or for the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing. See Davis v. State, 710 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998).
REVERSED and REMANDED, with instructions.
ALLEN, C.J., WOLF, J., concur; WEBSTER, J., concurs in result only.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Riggins v. State, 831 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…PER CURIAM. The appellant appeals the summary denial of his rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief upon remand by this Court. See Riggins v. State, 789 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). The appellant pled guilty to, and was convicted of, felony DUI, which requires proof of three previous DUI convictions. See § 316.193(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (1997). The appellant claimed that he received ineffective assistance of cou…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Beach, 592 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 1992)
- Davis v. State, 710 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)