FREDERICK E. MELVIN, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Melvin appealed the denial of his motion for postconviction relief, arguing his 1981 plea counsel failed to warn him that his convictions would be used as prior offenses in future sentencing guidelines calculations. The court affirmed, holding that neither trial courts nor defense counsel have a duty to warn defendants about potential sentence-enhancement consequences from future crimes.
The court held that neither trial courts nor defense counsel are required to warn a defendant about potential sentence-enhancing consequences his plea will have regarding future crimes, and neither have a duty to anticipate defendant's recidivism. Defendant can avoid sentencing consequences by refraining from committing new crimes.
[1] A defendant is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing where the alleged misadvice concerns the potential for enhanced penalties for future criminal behavior.
[2] Neither defense counsel nor the trial court has a duty to warn a defendant that their plea may have sentence-enhancing consequences for future crimes.
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 defendant is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing where the alleged misadvice was as to potential for enhanced penalties for future criminal behavior. Neither defense attorney nor trial court are required to "warn" defendant of sentence-enhancing consequences his plea will have as to any future crimes he may commit; neither trial court nor defense counsel have [a] duty to anticipate defendant's recidivism.”
Establishes the core holding that counsel and courts have no duty to warn about future sentence-enhancement consequences
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1981, Melvin entered a no contest plea to two felony counts in Dade County Circuit Court. In 1990, Melvin was convicted in another case, and his se…
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 Prior Record Scoring cases and more on FLexlaw
COPE, J.
Frederick E. Melvin appeals an order denying his motion for postconviction relief. We affirm.
Defendant-appellant Melvin filed a petition for writ error coram nobis in the trial court. The trial court properly treated the petition as a motion for postconviction relief which was timely filed under Wood v. State, 750 So. 2d 592 (Fla.1999).
In 1981 defendant entered a no contest plea to two felony counts in Dade County Circuit Court case number 81-260173. In 1990 defendant was adjudicated guilty in another case. His 1990 sentencing guidelines scoresheet included a score for his 1981 offenses as prior record.
Defendant now asks for postconviction relief on the theory that no one warned him that his 1981 convictions would be included in his sentencing guidelines score-sheet if he committed a new crime. He says that “his lawyer did not tell him that his plea could be used against him as ‘prior offenses.’ ” Defendant asks that his 1981 convictions be set aside, thus eliminating them from his 1990 scoresheet.
To begin with, the sentencing guidelines did not exist in 1981, so counsel could not have given advice about the guidelines in any event. See ch. 82-145, Laws of Fla. (creating Sentencing Commission to develop sentencing guidelines).
The more important point is, as stated by the trial court:
The defendant is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing where the alleged misadvice was as to potential for enhanced penalties for future criminal behavior. Neither defense attorney nor trial court are required to “warn” defendant of sentence-enhancing consequences his plea will have as to any future crimes he may commit; neither trial court nor defense counsel have [a] duty to anticipate defendant’s recidivism. See Rhodes v. State, 701 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997).
See Major v. State, 790 So. 2d 550, 551-52 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); see also Bismark v. State, 796 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Baker v. State, 796 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). “The defendant can avoid further sentencing consequences, enhanced or otherwise, by refraining from committing new crimes.” Major, 790 So. 2d at 552. As we did in Major, we certify that we have passed on the following question of great public importance:
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT OR COUNSEL HAVE A DUTY TO ADVISE A DEFENDANT THAT HIS PLEA IN A PENDING CASE MAY HAVE SENTENCE ENHANCING CONSEQUENCES IF THE DEFENDANT COMMITS A NEW CRIME IN THE FUTURE?
Affirmed; question certified.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Wood v. State, 750 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 1999)
- Fritz Major v. State, 790 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
- Rhodes v. State, 701 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
- Bismark v. State, 796 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Baker v. State, 796 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)