PABLO IVAN GOMEZ, 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.
The court held that the record did not conclusively refute the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel regarding a rejected plea offer, requiring a remand for an evidentiary hearing.
The defendant alleged his counsel advised him to reject a favorable plea bargain based on a promise of a successful motion to suppress, which ultimate…
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 Bargaining cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Pablo Ivan Gomez appeals an order denying his motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Defendant-appellant Gomez alleges that he was offered a favorable plea bargain of three to four years in circuit court case number 97-39198, and seven years in circuit court case number 93-28897. He asserts that his defense counsel advised him to reject the offer, because defense counsel assured him that a pending motion to suppress evidence would be successful. The defendant says that he turned down the plea offer but the motion to suppress, heard in 1998, was unsuccessful. Gomez v. State, 748 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999).
In 1999, the defendant entered into a plea bargain for seven years incarceration in the 1997 case and seventeen years in the 1993 case. He maintains that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance by advising him to reject the original plea bargain.
Because the present record does not conclusively refute the defendant’s claim, see Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D), we reverse this part of the order denying the Rule 3.850 motion and remand for an evidentiary hearing or other appropriate relief. See Brown v. State, 787 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Garcia v. State, 736 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). See generally Cottle v. State, 733 So. 2d 963 (Fla.1999); State v. Moses, 682 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996).
We affirm the denial of postconviction relief on the defendant’s remaining points.
Affirmed in part, reversed in, part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.*
*
Although the defendant attempted to file the Rule 3.850 motion in both his 1993 and 1997 cases, through a combination of clerical errors it appears the motion was filed only in the 1993 case and not in the 1997 case. We treat the motion and order as having been filed in both cases, and this court’s remand for further proceedings covers both cases.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Cottle v. State, 733 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 1999)
- Garcia v. State, 736 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- State v. Moses, 682 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- Gomez v. State, 748 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- Brown v. State, 787 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Romel Deon Edward v. State, 787 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)