VRAIN SCOTT, 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.
Vrain Scott appealed the denial of his motion for postconviction relief seeking to vacate guilty pleas entered in 1991 and 1992 cases. Scott claimed his counsel gave him affirmative misadvice that pleas in those cases would not be used against him for future crimes. The court affirmed, holding that defendants are not entitled to relief based on misadvice regarding sentence-enhancing consequences of prior pleas when those consequences flow from future crimes, since defendants have a legal duty to refrain from committing further crimes.
A defendant is not entitled to postconviction relief where he has been given affirmative misadvice regarding the possible sentence-enhancing consequences of a prior plea in the event the defendant commits new crimes in the future, because the defendant has a legal duty to refrain from committing further crimes and it makes no difference whether the advice regarding enhanced punishment was correct or incorrect.
[1] A defendant is not entitled to relief from a plea based on affirmative misadvice that prior charges would not be used for future sentence enhancement if the defendant com…
[2] A defendant has a legal duty to refrain from committing further crimes, regardless of advice received about potential sentence enhancement.
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 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.”
Establishes the core legal principle that misadvice about future sentencing enhancements does not entitle a defendant to postconviction relief
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceScott entered guilty pleas in three Miami-Dade County cases (91-19120, 91-19121, 92-21209) in 1991 and 1992. In 1994, he was convicted of new charges …
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.
Vrain Scott appeals an order denying his motion for postconviction relief. We affirm.
Defendant-appellant Scott1 entered into plea bargains in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court case numbers 91-19120, 91-19121, 92-21209. He filed a motion for postconviction relief, seeking to set aside his pleas in those cases. His motion was timely under Wood v. State, 750 So. 2d 592 (Fla.1999).
Defendant alleges that his counsel in the above cases gave him affirmative misadvice that if he entered a plea in those cases, those charges would not be used against him if he came back before the court in the future for new crimes. Defendant contends that he is entitled to have his pleas vacated in the 1991 and 1992 cases cited above.
In 1994, defendant was convicted of new charges in circuit case number 94-38169A. He was adjudicated a habitual violent felony offender (“HVO”). The habitualization order indicates that his conviction in circuit court case number 91-19120 was used as a predicate offense for imposition of the HVO adjudication. For that reason, he seeks relief from the plea in circuit court case number 91-19120 as well as his other 1991 and 1992 cases. The trial court denied relief, and was correct in 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 the defendant is under a legal duty to refrain committing further crimes. It makes no difference whether the defendant is given correct, or incorrect, advice regarding the possibility of enhanced punishment.
We acknowledge that a different rule has been announced in Smith v. State, 784 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). We disagree with that case.
However, the decisional conflict does not make a difference in this case. That is so because the HVO order in this case was also supported by a completely different predicate offense, a conviction for aggravated battery in circuit court ease number 93-13982. Even if the defendant were given relief with regard to circuit court case number 91-19120 (a conviction for aggravated assault), the 1994 HVO adjudication would remain intact because of the defendant’s aggravated battery conviction in circuit court case number 93-13982. To support an HVO adjudication, only one predicate offense is needed. See § 775.084(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (1993).
Affirmed.2
. The record indicates that Vrain Scott is also known as Marvin McCall, Scott Grant, and Marvin Graham.
. Defendant also contends that the judgments in the 1991 and 1992 cases should be amended to reflect a withholding of adjudication. However, the plea colloquy reflects an adjudication of guilt in each of the cases, so this claim is rejected.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
State v. Dickey, 928 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 2006)…ense counsel mistakenly informs the defendant that his guilty plea cannot be used to enhance a subsequent sentence, we believe public policy demands that the defendant bear the consequences of his decision to commit future crimes.”); Scott v. State, 813 So. 2d 1025, 1026 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (“A defendant is not entitled to relief where he has been given affirmative misadvice regarding the possible sentence-enhancing consequences of a plea in the event that the defendant commits a new crime in the future.”); McK…
-
Bates v. State, 818 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…t entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the voluntariness of his plea where his plea was entered on the alleged misadvice of his defense counsel as to the potential for enhanced penalties for Appellant’s future criminal behavior. See Scott v. State, 813 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (holding that 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…
-
McKOWEN v. State, 831 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…the consequences of a plea, noting that, unlike other collateral consequences such as deportation or gain time eligibility, the defendant can always avoid the future sentence-enhancing effects of a plea by obeying the law. In Scott v. State, [*796] 813 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002), the court held that a defendant is not entitled to receive postconviction relief on such a claim, because he is under a legal duty to refrain from committing further crimes, whether or not counsel’s advice of possible enhanced pu…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Wood v. State, 750 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 1999)
- Smith v. State, 784 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- 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)
- Woods v. State, 806 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)