MATTHEW J. LEWIS, 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.
Matthew Lewis appeals the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief, claiming his trial counsel misled him about gain time eligibility following his guilty plea to armed burglary. The court reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing, finding that the plea colloquy and waiver forms did not conclusively refute his allegations of counsel's ineffective assistance regarding sentence calculations.
The court held that summary denial was improper because the defendant's statements in the plea colloquy and waiver agreement do not conclusively refute his claim that trial counsel specifically misrepresented gain time entitlement, and that knowledge of the mandatory minimum did not eliminate the potential for counsel's erroneous advice about overall gain time eligibility.
[1] A defendant's claim that their guilty plea was involuntary due to ineffective assistance of counsel regarding gain time entitlement is not conclusively refuted by a plea…
[2] A defendant's assertion of ineffective assistance of counsel based on misrepresentations about gain time eligibility can warrant post-conviction relief even when the sent…
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 defendant's negative response to the trial court's question of whether anything had been promised to him to induce his guilty plea did not conclusively refute his claim in a motion for post-conviction relief that his plea was the product of trial counsel's misrepresentations about the amount of time he would actually serve and his eligibility for gain time”
Establishes the controlling principle from Leroux that plea colloquy statements do not conclusively refute counsel misrepresentation claims
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLewis entered a guilty plea to armed burglary after his trial counsel allegedly advised him he would serve only 26 months in prison after gain time cr…
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 Colloquy cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant appeals a trial court order summarily denying his motion for post conviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
Appellant alleged in his motion that his trial counsel advised him that if he entered a guilty plea to the charge of armed burglary he would serve only twenty six months in prison with credit for time served after gain time was credited to his sentence. He alleged that he learned after entering his plea and receiving a sentence of 42.05 months in prison, with a three year mandatory minimum, he would not be entitled to gain time for the three year mandatory minimum portion of his sentence. Instead, he would receive gain time only on the balance of his sentence. Thus, he alleged his plea was involuntary and that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel in advising him about gain time entitlement.
The trial court summarily denied post-conviction relief, finding that the record refuted his claims. In its order, the trial court cited the plea colloquy in which appellant said that he read the plea agreement and that no one had made him any promises other than what was contained there and what was stated in open court regarding his sentence. The trial court also attached the waiver of rights agreement which stated that appellant had not received any promises from anyone, including his counsel, regarding eligibility for any form of early release or the actual amount of time he will serve under the sentence to be imposed.
In State v. Leroux, 689 So. 2d 235 (Fla.1996), the Supreme Court of Florida held that a defendant’s negative response to the trial court’s question of whether anything had been promised to him to induce his guilty plea did not conclusively refute his claim in a motion for post-conviction relief that his plea was the product of trial counsel’s misrepresentations about the amount of time he would actually serve and his eligibility for gain time.
The State argues that Leroux is distinguishable because the appellant here was advised that he was being sentenced to a mandatory minimum sentence of three years as part of his total sentence. However, we find that this fact does not conclusively refute appellant’s claim that he was erroneously advised by his own counsel that he still would be entitled to gain time and would have to serve only approximately twenty six months of his total sentence.
Accordingly, the summary denial is reversed and this cause is remanded' for an evidentiary hearing consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
DELL, STEVENSON and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Garcia v. State, 907 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…o. 2d 1050, 1051-52 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (reversing for an evidentiary hearing where the record did not conclusively refute the defendant’s claim of misadvice by trial counsel as to how long he would serve in prison if he pled guilty); Lewis v. State, 795 So. 2d 1061, 1061-62 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)(revers-ing the summary denial of a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, and remanding for an evidentiary hearing, because the plea colloquy did not conclusively refute the defendant’s claim that “he was erroneousl…
-
Griffin v. State, 869 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…as the plea colloquy and forms do not conclusively refute Griffin’s claim of misadvice associated with his entitlement to gain time and its effect on the length of his sentence. See [*774] State v. Leroux, 689 So. 2d 235 (Fla.1996); Lewis v. State, 795 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). FARMER, C.J., KLEIN and MAY, JJ., concur.…
-
Thomas v. State, 888 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…misadvice. Thomas alleged that counsel told him to answer, “yes” to the judge’s questions during the plea colloquy. The' plea colloquy and forms do not conclusively refute Thomas’ claims. State v. Leroux, 689 So. 2d 235 (Fla.1996); Lewis v. State, 795 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Griffin v. State, 869 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). The plea colloquy and forms established that Thomas was aware that he would be sentenced to prison as a youthful offender. This, however, is not inconsistent with Thomas’ c…
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
- State v. Leroux, 689 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 1996)