TORRANCE JONES, 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.
Torrance Jones appealed an order denying his motion for postconviction relief, challenging a conviction where his plea may have had sentence-enhancing consequences for a subsequently committed crime. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that neither trial courts nor counsel have a duty to advise defendants of potential sentence-enhancing consequences of a plea for crimes committed in the future, and certified a direct conflict with Fourth District precedent.
Neither the trial court nor counsel has a duty to advise a defendant that a plea may have sentence-enhancing consequences for future crimes. Postconviction relief is barred even if counsel gives affirmative misadvice regarding such consequences. A defendant has an independent legal duty to refrain from committing further crimes, and the correctness of advice regarding enhanced punishment is irrelevant to this duty.
[1] A trial court or counsel has no duty to advise a defendant that a plea in a pending case may have sentence-enhancing consequences on a sentence for a future crime.
[2] Postconviction relief is barred even if counsel provides affirmative misadvice regarding the sentence-enhancing consequences of a plea for a new crime committed in the fu…
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“[N]either the trial court nor counsel has a duty to advise a defendant that the defendant's plea in a pending case may have sentence enhancing consequences on a sentence imposed for a crime committed in the future.”
Establishes the primary holding that counsel has no duty to advise about sentence-enhancing consequences of future crimes
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJones was convicted and entered a plea. The conviction and plea potentially had sentence-enhancing consequences that applied to a crime Jones committe…
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
PER CURIAM.
The opinion filed November 27, 2002, is withdrawn, and the following is substituted in its place:
Torrance Jones appeals an order denying his motion for postconviction relief. We affirm. “[N]either the trial court nor counsel has a duty to advise a defendant that the defendant’s plea in a pending case may have sentence enhancing consequences on a sentence imposed for a crime committed in the future.” Major v. State, 814 So. 2d 424, 431 (Fla.2002). This court also bars postconviction relief even if counsel gives affirmative misadviee regarding the sentence enhancing consequences of a plea for a new crime committed in the future. Rhodes v. State, 701 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); see also Ford v. State, 753 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). That is so for practical, and public policy, reasons. “[T]he defendant is under a legal duty to refrain from committing further crimes. It makes no difference whether the defendant is given correct, or incorrect, advice regarding the possibility of enhanced punishment.” Scott v. State, 813 So. 2d 1025, 1026-27 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002).
The Fourth District Court of Appeal has decided differently. See Jones v. State, 814 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Smith v. State, 784 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). As we did in McPhee v. State, 823 So. 2d 160 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002), Wallace v. State, 833 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002), and Cifuentes v. State, 816 So. 2d 804 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002), we certify direct conflict with Smith. See also Bates v. State, 818 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)(conflict certified); Stansel v. State, 825 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)(same).
Rehearing granted; affirmed; direct conflict certified.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bates v. State, 887 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 2004)…So. 2d 64 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (certifying the same question as in Bates); Hanson v. State, 839 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (citing Stansel v. State, 825 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), which certified the same question as in Bates); Jones v. State, 838 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (holding that a defendant is not entitled to postconviction relief for affirmative misad-vice regarding the sentence-enhancing consequences of a plea for a new crime committed in the future, and certifying conflict with Smith v. S…
-
Robby Eugene Hogan v. State, 931 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…State, 879 So. 2d 1243, 1244 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (trial counsel’s alleged misadvice regarding possible sentence-enhancing consequences of a plea in the event the defendant committed new crimes does not warrant postconviction relief); Jones v. State, 838 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Wallace v. State, 833 So. 2d 796, 798 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (holding that affirmative misadvice regarding the sentence enhancing consequences of a plea for a new crime committed in the future is not grounds for postconviction relief…
Authorities Cited (12 total)
- Daron Merritt v. State, 814 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 2002)
- Stansel v. State, 825 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Smith v. State, 784 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Rhodes v. State, 701 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
- Bates v. State, 818 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- Ford v. State, 753 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
- Vrain Scott v. State, 813 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)
- Jones v. State, 814 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- McPHEE v. State, 823 So. 2d 160 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)
- Carrazana v. State, 816 So. 2d 804 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)