ISAAC SMITH, 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.
Isaac Smith appeals a summary denial of his rule 3.850 postconviction relief motion claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirms the denial of his first claim but reverses and remands his second claim, which alleges that his trial counsel falsely represented that his guilty plea would not be used against him in future sentencing, when it was subsequently used to support habitual sentencing enhancement.
Affirmative misadvice of counsel regarding the sentence-enhancing consequences of a plea is cognizable in a rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief and differs from mere failure to advise of enhancement consequences. Where such misadvice leads a defendant to enter a plea he otherwise would not have entered, both the performance and prejudice prongs of the Strickland test are satisfied.
[1] Affirmative misadvice of counsel regarding the future consequences of a guilty plea is cognizable in a motion for postconviction relief.
[2] A defendant may withdraw a guilty plea if counsel's misadvice led the defendant to enter a plea they otherwise would not have entered.
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“This court has treated affirmative misadviee of counsel differently from the mere failure to advise of enhancement consequences and has found it cognizable in a motion for postconviction relief.”
Establishes the key distinction that affirmative misadvice, unlike mere failure to advise, is cognizable on 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 intelligenceIsaac Smith entered a guilty plea in a criminal case based on his counsel's representation that the plea would not be used against him in future proce…
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 Of Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Isaac Smith (Appellant) appeals from an order summarily denying his rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief. We affirm without discussion his first claim for relief, but reverse and remand for further proceedings as to his second claim. There, he alleged ineffective assistance of counsel for his counsel’s false representation that his guilty plea in the instant case would not later be used against him, when, in fact, it was used against him to support habitual sentencing in a subsequent case.
This court has treated affirmative misadviee of counsel differently from the mere failure to advise of enhancement consequences and has found it cognizable in a motion for postconviction relief. See Murphy v. State, 820 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Love v. State, 814 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Smith v. State, 784 So. 2d 460, 461 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); see also Bates v. State, 818 So. 2d 626, 631 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (“[Wjhere such misadviee leads a defendant to enter a plea he otherwise would not have entered, both the performance and prejudice prongs of Strickland are satisfied and the plea may be withdrawn.”) (Allen, C.J., dissenting in part) (citations omitted); see generally Walkup v. State, 822 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)(holding that allegation of affirmative misadviee that refusal to plead would subject defendant to commitment under Involuntary Civil Commitment of Sexually Violent Predators Act stated facially sufficient claim); Joyner v. State, 795 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)(revers-ing summary denial of rule 3.850 motion where defendant alleged that he would not have entered plea but for defense counsel’s affirmative misadviee that youthful offender adjudications did not count as prior convictions for purposes of future repercussions).
We certify conflict with recent cases from the first, second, and third districts concluding otherwise. See Stansel v. State, 825 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Bates; Scott v. State, 813 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). As the courts did in Stan-sel and Bates, we certify the following as a question of great public importance:
WHETHER ALLEGATIONS OF AFFIRMATIVE MISADVICE BY TRIAL COUNSEL ON THE SENTENCE-ENHANCING CONSEQUENCES OF A DEFENDANT’S PLEA FOR FUTURE CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR IN AN OTHERWISE FACIALLY SUFFICIENT MOTION ARE COGNIZABLE AS AN INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL CLAIM.
Finally, the state urges that if this case is remanded, the trial court should be advised that it is free to revisit the issue of laches on remand. Although the state raised the issue below, the trial court did not base its ruling on laches. We agree that the issue of laches may be revisited on remand. However, as we noted in Love, that doctrine often involves issues that cannot be properly resolved without an evidentiary hearing. See Love, 814 So. 2d at 478 (citing State v. Perry, 786 So. 2d 554, 558 (Fla.2001)).
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for further proceedings.
KLEIN, SHAHOOD and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Dickey, 928 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 2006)…se sentencing effect should he decide to commit future crimes”). The Fourth District Court of Appeal, however, has held that this affirmative misadvice claim is a valid ineffective assistance claim on which relief may be granted. See Smith v. State, 829 So. 2d 940, 941 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (citing cases). Finally, the First District originally aligned itself with the Second, Third, and Fifth Districts. See Bates, 818 So. 2d at 630-631. In Bates, the district court also certified the question presented here. O…
-
Bates v. State, 887 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 2004)…plea involuntary. See McKowen v. State, 831 So. 2d 794, 796 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Rhodes v. State, 701 So. 2d 388, 389 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Stansel v. State, 825 So. 2d 1007, 1010 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). One court has held differently. See Smith v. State, 829 So. 2d 940, 941 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). Many of these courts have analyzed the issue in terms of a plea’s voluntariness, without considering either the deficient performance or prejudice prongs of Strickland. Misadvice About the Collateral Consequences of Future…
-
Hope v. State, 908 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…02), Scott v. State, 813 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002), McKowen v. State, 831 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). But see Dickey v. State, 30 Fla. L. Weekly D443, — So. 2d — (Fla. 1st DCA Feb.15, 2005). Accordingly, as this court did in Smith v. State, 829 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), we certify the following question to be of great public importance: WHETHER ALLEGATIONS OF AFFIRMATIVE MISADVICE BY TRIAL COUNSEL ON THE SENTENCE-ENHANCING CONSEQUENCES OF A DEFENDANT’S PLEA FOR FUTURE CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR IN AN…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Stansel v. State, 825 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Smith v. State, 784 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Bates v. State, 818 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- State v. Perry, 786 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 2001)
- LaMarr Love v. State, 814 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- Vrain Scott v. State, 813 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)
- Darron Joyner v. State, 795 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Murphy v. State, 820 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- Walkup v. State, 822 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)