DONOVAN CASEY ODOM, 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.
Donovan Casey Odom appealed the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief following his guilty plea to firearm and cocaine charges. The court reversed and remanded, finding the lower court erred in treating the motion as successive and in summarily denying relief without an evidentiary hearing on claims regarding ineffective assistance of counsel.
The court held that the Rule 3.850 motion was not successive because the prior Rule 3.800 motion raised substantially dissimilar issues, and the lower court erred in summarily denying relief without an evidentiary hearing, as the record did not conclusively refute appellant's claims regarding counsel's advice about habitual felony offender sentencing.
[1] A post-conviction relief motion is not successive if its claims are substantially dissimilar to those raised in a prior motion.
[2] A claim that a defendant was improperly sentenced as a habitual felony offender due to lack of notice is substantially dissimilar to claims regarding the voluntariness of…
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“the earlier 3.800 motion raised an issue which is substantially dissimilar from the issues raised in the motion under review, and thus, this second motion cannot be said to be successive”
Establishes that the motions were not successive because they addressed different legal issues
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 possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and trafficking in cocaine. He entered a guilty plea pursuant to a negotiated …
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.
Donovan Casey Odom challenges an order denying his motion for post-conviction relief. We reverse and remand.
Appellant was charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and trafficking in cocaine. Appellant entered a guilty plea to these charges pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement. Appellant was thereafter sentenced to 30 years on each count, the sentences to be served consecutively. The sentence for possession of a firearm was classified as a habitual felony offender sentence, in accordance with the plea agreement.
Appellant thereafter filed a motion for post-conviction relief, on the authority of rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, raising numerous issues as to the voluntariness of the guilty plea and the effectiveness of trial counsel. The lower court denied the motion on the ground that it was barred as a successive motion. This was error. In an earlier motion, filed pursuant to rule 3.800, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, appellant claimed he was improperly sentenced as a habitual felony offender because he did not receive a copy of the state’s notice of intent to seek such sentencing. Thus, the earlier 3.800 motion raised an issue which is substantially dissimilar from the issues raised in the motion under review, and thus, this second motion cannot be said to be successive. See Reid v. State, 724 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).
The lower court did consider the merits of appellant’s 3.850 motion and found that the record refuted appellant’s claims. One of those claims, stated in Issue II, is that he was incorrectly advised that he could be given a habitual felony offender sentence with regard to the trafficking charge. The excerpts of the record attached to the lower court’s order denying relief do not conclusively refute this allegation. In fact, the transcript of the plea hearing reflects only that the prosecutor was agreeing not to pursue a habitual felony offender sentence with regard to the trafficking charge; it is not at all apparent that counsel or the trial court understood that such an offense was not subject to sentencing pursuant to the habitual felony offender provisions. See Clay v. State, 750 So. 2d 153 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). Thus, the plea negotiations may have been premised on erroneous advice of counsel.
Accordingly, the order denying post-conviction relief is reversed and the cause is remanded for an evidentiary hearing on this ground as well as Issues I, III, and X of appellant’s motion for post-conviction relief.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
VAN NORTWICK, LEWIS and POLSTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Elmario Clay v. State, 750 So. 2d 153 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- Reid v. State, 724 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)