DAVID WOODS, 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.
David Woods appeals denial of his postconviction relief motion, claiming his counsel failed to advise him that his plea bargain convictions could later be used as predicate offenses for a habitual offender sentence enhancement. The court affirmed the denial and certified a question of great public importance regarding whether counsel must advise defendants of potential future sentence-enhancement consequences.
The court affirmed the trial court's denial of postconviction relief, holding that counsel does not have a duty to advise a defendant that his current plea may have sentence-enhancing consequences in potential future cases. Even assuming arguendo that Woods alleged affirmative misadvice rather than mere failure to advise, the court rejected the claim based on established precedent.
[1] A defendant's postconviction motion alleging counsel failed to advise of potential sentence enhancement consequences of a plea is timely if filed under the rule established in Wood v. …
[2] A trial court or counsel has no duty to advise a defendant that a plea in a pending case may have sentence-enhancing consequences if the defendant commits a new crime in…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“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?”
Certified question of great public importance establishing the precise legal issue before the court.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWoods entered into plea bargains in three Miami-Dade County circuit court cases (94-40615, 95-18, and 95-15869). He was later sentenced as a habitual …
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 Affirmative Misadvice cases and more on FLexlaw
COPE, J.
David Woods appeals an order denying his motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The motion is timely under Wood v. State, 750 So. 2d 592 (Fla.1999).
Defendant-appellant Woods entered into plea bargains in Miami-Dade County circuit court case numbers 94-40615, 95-18, and 95-15869. He alleges that his counsel failed to advise him that his convictions in those cases could be used against him in the future as a prior offense for purposes of a habitual offender sentence. The trial court denied relief and defendant has appealed.1
We affirm the trial court orders on authority of Major v. State, 790 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 3d DCA), review granted, 797 So. 2d 586 (Fla.2001). 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?
The defendant argues that his motion in fact alleges affirmative misadvice by his counsel, rather than a simple failure to advise. We do not think that the motions filed below can fairly be so read.2 Assuming arguendo that the defendant intended to allege affirmative misadvice, we reject that claim on authority of Rhodes v. State, 701 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997), Ford v. State, 753 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000), and Collier v. State, 796 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001).
Affirmed; question certified.
. Defendant states that thereafter he was sentenced as a habitual offender in Miami-Dade County circuit court case number 95-22610, and that the underlying convictions were used as predicate offenses.
. Each motion alleges:
The defendant's court appointed lawyer did not tell him at the time he entered his plea that the plea could be used against him in state court as a prior offense for purposes [of] an habitual offender sentence. Had the defendant been advised the plea and conviction could be used as the basis for a future habitual offender sentence, the defendant would not have accepted the plea. Thus, absent appointed counsel’s misleading advice, the defendant would not have pled guilty.
The defendant’s plea and his conviction were used as a basis to impose an enhanced sentence. Had the defendant been aware of the potential for enhancement, he would not have pled to the case. His appointed counsel’s ineffective assistance fell far below the applicable standard of competence. The defendant was severely prejudiced by virtue of appointed counsel's ineffective assistance.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Vrain Scott v. State, 813 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…n doing so. A defendant is not entitled to relief where he has been given affirmative mis-advice regarding the possible sentence-enhancing consequences of a plea in the event that the defendant commits a new crime in the future. See Woods v. State, 806 So. 2d 621, 621-622 (Fla. 3d DCA) review granted, No. SC02-484 (Fla. Feb. 26, 2002); Collier v. State, 796 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Ford v. State, 753 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Rhodes v. State, 701 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). That is so because t…
-
Fernandez v. State, 806 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Woods v. State, 806 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Ford v. State, 753 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000).…
-
Robby Eugene Hogan v. State, 931 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…quences of a plea for a new crime committed in the future is not grounds for postconviction relief as the defendant is under a legal duty to refrain from committing further crimes); Scott v. State, 813 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Woods v. State, 806 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Collier v. State, 796 So. 2d 629, 630 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (“Neither the sentencing court nor counsel is required ‘to anticipate a defendant’s future recidivism.’ ”) (quoting Major v. State, 790 So. 2d at 551). “The court and couns…
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)
- Ford v. State, 753 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
- Collier v. State, 796 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)