GEORGE PARKS, 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.
The court held that the trial court erred in denying the appellant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel without an evidentiary hearing or attaching record evidence refuting the claim.
Appellant sought post-conviction relief, alleging his counsel misinformed him about the maximum sentence he could receive if he went to trial, leading…
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 Plea Offer cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIFFIN, J.
George W. Parks (“appellant”) appeals the denial of his rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief. We find no merit to the issues raised by appellant, save one.
Appellant argues that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his claim that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because he was misinformed by counsel regarding the maximum sentence he could receive if he went to trial. Appellant claims that he was unaware that by proceeding to trial he could receive thirty (30) years as an habitual offender, while the State had offered seven years in the DOC or five years in the DOC followed by four years’ probation. Appellant maintains that trial counsel told him that, if convicted and habitualized, he could be given a maximum sentence of ten years in the DOC. He maintains that he decided to reject the offer because the maximum penalty was only a few more years in the DOC than the offer being made by the State. He contends that, had he known he could have been sentenced to thirty years in the DOC, he would have accepted the plea offer made by the State. See Gant v. State, 777 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Lewis v. State, 751 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Lester v. State, 773 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).
The trial court denied the claim because appellant acknowledged on the record the plea offer made by the State; that the State would not seek habitual offender status if he accepted the offer; and that the State would not object to concurrent sentencing. While appellant was plainly aware of the terms of the offer made by the State, his claim is based on allegations that he was misinformed about the sentence he could receive if he rejected the plea. The trial court must either attach portions of the record demonstrating that this claim is without merit or afford Parks an evidentiary hearing.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part.
PETERSON and PLEUS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ferrara v. State, 114 So. 3d 990 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)…ears in prison when he actually faced life imprisonment and defendant rejected favorable plea offer of two years in prison, defendant sufficiently alleged prejudice even though he only received fifteen-year prison sentence); see also Parks v. State, 814 So. 2d 1135 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Lester v. State, 773 So. 2d 1188, 1189 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (mere fact that defense counsel advised defendant that State had served notice of intent to seek habitualization did not mean counsel had explained to defendant what habi…
-
Cutuli v. State, 832 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…quy advised Cutuli as to the maximum sentence he could receive. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.172(c)(1). Thus, we conclude that this claim also requires an evidentary hearing: See Wilson v. State, 593 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); see also Parks v. State, 814 So. 2d 1135 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Simpson v. State, 741 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Swain v. State, 699 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). The order denying postconviction relief is reversed in part and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the two grounds d…
Authorities Cited
- Lewis v. State, 751 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
- Lester v. State, 773 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Gant v. State, 777 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)