JACKIE RAY MAPLES, 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.
Jackie Ray Maples appealed the summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel and involuntary plea. The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the denial, finding Maples failed to demonstrate a viable suppression defense, adequate notice of sentencing consequences, or that his medications rendered his plea involuntary.
The court affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief. Maples failed to establish ineffective assistance because the stop and identification were lawful and therefore no viable defense existed. His involuntary plea claims also failed because he was informed the sentence could be reversed on appeal and was aware of the risks, and the record showed his medications actually helped him understand the proceedings.
[1] To establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with a guilty or nolo contendere plea, a defendant must demonstrate the existence of a viable defe…
[2] A defendant claiming an involuntary plea based on false advice must show prejudice resulting from that advice.
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“in order to establish a claim of ineffective assistance in connection with a nolo contendere or guilty plea, a defendant must show he in fact had a viable defense”
Establishes the legal standard for ineffective assistance claims related to guilty pleas, requiring proof of a viable defense.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMaples pled guilty to burglary with assault or battery, loitering and prowling, and resisting an officer without violence. He was originally sentenced…
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 Illegal Stop cases and more on FLexlaw
Maples appeals from the summary denial of his motion alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel and two grounds to establish an involuntary plea, pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Maples pled guilty to burglary with an assault or battery,1 loitering and prowling,2 and resisting an officer without violence.3 We affirm.
Maples asserts his trial counsel failed in his defense by not moving to suppress identification witnesses, because the identifications were the product of an illegal stop and an unduly suggestive out-of-court identification procedure. He alleges that had he known of these defenses he would not have pled to the charges. However, in order to establish a claim of ineffective assistance in connection with a nolo contendere or guilty plea, a defendant must show he in fact had a viable defense. See Siegel v. State, 586 So. 2d 1341 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). The attachments to the trial court’s order show that the stop and the subsequent identification were lawful. Thus, Maples has not demonstrated a viable defense.
With regard to the involuntary plea claim, Maples claims his was involuntary because it was based on false advice of the trial court and trial counsel. He was originally sentenced to thirty years as a Prison Releasee Reoffender. On appeal, this court vacated that sentence and remanded for resentencing for life.4 Maples now contends his counsel failed to inform him that the thirty-year sentence was illegal and that the minimum sentence the court could impose was life. However, the record reflects Maples was informed that the thirty year sentence was not guaranteed and could be reversed on appeal. Thus, Maples has failed to demonstrate any prejudice. He was aware of the risks when he entered his plea.
Maples also contends he was on “Haldol” and “Triazodone” during the plea colloquy and he was incapable of voluntarily entering a plea. The record refutes this claim. At the plea hearing, Maples was questioned about his medications. He said they did not make him feel inebriated, but in fact helped him understand the proceedings.
AFFIRMED.
HARRIS and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur. . §§ 810.02(1) and (2)(A); 784.03, Fla. Stat. . § 856.021, Fla. Stat. .§ 843.02, Fla. Stat. . See State v. Maples, 739 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), rev. denied, 770 So. 2d 159 (Fla.2000).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Grosvenor v. State, 874 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 2004)…fine and subtle a distinction in disapproving the district court decisions which “have interpreted Hill as requiring a defendant to allege that, had the plea not been entered, the defendant would have prevailed at trial,” see, e.g., Maples v. State, 804 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Diaz v. State, 534 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), majority op. [*1188] at 1180, and then holding that “the viability of a defense is relevant to determine whether counsel performed deficiently in failing to inform the defendant…1 / 2
-
Brazeail v. State, 821 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…e was a reasonable probability of acquittal, conviction of a lesser offense, or a more advantageous plea offer. For example, Diaz v. State, 534 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), Siegel v. State, 586 So. 2d 1341 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), and Maples v. State, 804 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002), appear to hold that, in order to state a facially sufficient claim in a case such as this, the defendant must allege that he had a “viable defense” in addition to an allegation that, but for the ineffective assistance of counsel…
-
Hoggs v. State, 857 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…granted, 826 So. 2d 992 (Fla.2002)(certifying conflict with Cousino v. State, 770 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), and Mason v. State, 742 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); see also Gould v. State, 826 So. 2d 1101 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Maples v. State, 804 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). AFFIRMED. SHARP, W. and TORPY, JJ., concur.…
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
- Siegel v. State, 586 So. 2d 1341 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- State v. Maples, 739 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)