MAURICE HARRIS, 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.
Maurice Harris appealed the trial court's denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion seeking to withdraw his guilty pleas. The appellate court affirmed the denial, finding that Harris's claims were facially insufficient because he failed to allege that he would not have pleaded guilty had he known the actual consequences of his pleas.
The court affirmed the trial court's denial of all three claims as either successive or facially insufficient. Harris failed to allege that he would not have pleaded guilty had he been aware of the actual consequences, which is required for a cognizable involuntary plea claim. The court affirmed without prejudice, giving Harris sixty days to file facially sufficient 3.850 and 3.800 motions.
[1] A motion to withdraw a guilty plea based on involuntariness requires an allegation that the defendant would not have pleaded guilty if fully aware of the consequences.
[2] A claim that a guilty plea was involuntary due to lack of advice regarding habitual offender sentencing requires an allegation that the defendant would not have pleaded i…
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“Harris's claim, although cognizable in a rule 3.850 motion, is facially insufficient because he failed to allege that he would not have pleaded if he had been aware of the reasonable consequences of habitualization.”
Establishes that conclusory claims without allegation of prejudice are facially insufficient in Rule 3.850 motions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHarris pleaded guilty to several offenses and was sentenced to twenty years in prison as a habitual offender. Within thirty days, he filed a motion to…
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 Motion Pursuant To Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.800(A) cases and more on FLexlaw
NORTHCUTT, Judge.
Maurice Harris challenges the order of the trial court denying his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm without discussion the denial of one of the grounds contained in the motion. We affirm the trial court’s denial of the remaining two 3.850 claims because they are facially insufficient. Our affirmance is without prejudice to any right Harris might have to file a facially sufficient rule 3.850 motion alleging the same grounds for relief.
According to his motion, Harris pleaded guilty to several offenses and was sentenced to a total of twenty years’ prison as a habitual offender. The trial court’s order and the attachments to it show that within thirty days of the rendition of the sentences, Harris filed a motion to withdraw, his pleas pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(£)- The motion was denied by the trial court, and Harris filed the present rule 3.850 motion within the applicable two-year time limit. The trial court denied the motion as successive. However, two of the grounds raised in the motion were not raised in the prior rule 3.170G) motion.
In the 3.850 motion, Harris alleged that his pleas were involuntary because the trial court did not advise him of the consequences of habitualization. Harris’s claim, although cognizable in a rule 3.850 motion, is facially insufficient because he failed to allege that he would not have pleaded if he had been aware of the reasonable consequences of habitualization. See Newsome v. State, 704 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). We therefore affirm without prejudice to any right Harris might have to file a facially sufficient claim in this regard. See Sampson v. State, 794 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).
Harris also sought to withdraw his pleas on the basis that he pleaded guilty with the understanding that he would not be sentenced as a habitual offender. The portion of the transcript of the plea hearing that Harris attached to his motion appears to support this claim. However, Harris again failed to allege prejudice, because he failed to allege that he would not have pleaded if he had known that the trial court would sentence him as a habitual offender. When a defendant, in a rule 3.850 motion, seeks to withdraw his plea on the ground that it was involuntary because he was provided incorrect information regarding the consequences of the plea, he must allege that he would not have accepted the plea if he had been fully aware of the consequences. See State v. Taylor, 738 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (holding that for a facially sufficient claim that the plea was involuntary based on misadvice of counsel, defendant must allege he would not have accepted the plea agreement but for the misadvice). Again our affirmance is without prejudice to any right Harris might have to file a facially sufficient claim. Harris shall have sixty days from the date the mandate issues in this case to file a facially sufficient rule 3.850 motion containing the above two claims.
We note that Harris’s motion also contained the statement that “the sentencing documents do not comport with the oral pronouncement.” The trial court did not address this claim in its order denying Harris’s motion. Such a claim is cognizable in a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) proceeding. See Dawson/Knapp v. State, 698 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). However, Harris does not state the factual basis for this claim, and it is conclusory and facially insufficient. We therefore affirm the denial of the claim. Our affirmance is without prejudice to any right Harris might have to file a facially sufficient rule 3.800 claim addressing this issue.
Affirmed.
ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and WHATLEY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. State, 959 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…e, 789 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001), but it is difficult to reconcile the language of these two rules. Courts have, however, sometimes held that a motion under 3.850 was successive because of an earlier motion under 3.170(Z). See Harris v. State, 801 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Although a movant cannot allege ineffective assistance of counsel concerning representation on a motion under rule 3.850, see Lambrix v. State, 698 So. 2d 247 (Fla.1996), since rule 3.170(Z) is a critical stage of proceedings pri…
-
Hoggs v. State, 857 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…ere are two things wrong with his position. First, he does not allege, as he must, that but for his counsel’s advice, he would have gone to trial. See Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59, 106 S.Ct. 366, 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985); see also Harris v. State, 801 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Instead, he suggests that but for his counsel’s advice, he would have accepted the state’s plea offer of nine years. The plea offer, however, had expired six months before he received the advice he now questions, and was not avai…
-
Powell v. State, 841 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…nts to which he refers nor does he allege that his entitlement to relief can be determined from the face of the record. Therefore, this claim is facially insufficient. See McCune v. State, 831 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); see also Harris v. State, 801 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (affirming the denial of a rule 3.800(a) claim where the defendant did not state a factual basis for the claim). As to this claim, we affirm without prejudice to any right Powell may have to file a facially sufficient rule 3.800(a…
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
- Cynthia Ann Dawson/Knapp v. State, 698 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Newsome v. State, 704 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- State v. Taylor, 738 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- Thearon Sampson v. State, 794 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Media Gen. Convergence, Inc. v. Chief Judge OF THE Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, 794 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)