MICHAEL ALLEN AEBI, 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.
Michael Aebi appeals the denial of his Rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief, raising five ineffective assistance of counsel claims related to his probation revocation. The appellate court affirmed three grounds but reversed and remanded on two grounds concerning failure to investigate witnesses and failure to advise of plea consequences.
The court affirmed the trial court's denial of Aebi's first three claims as facially insufficient but reversed and remanded on the remaining two claims. Aebi sufficiently alleged ineffective assistance regarding witness investigation because he identified the witnesses, described their testimony, and alleged prejudice. He also sufficiently alleged ineffective assistance regarding inadequate advice on plea consequences because the record did not refute his claim that counsel failed to advise him of penalties for rejecting the plea and proceeding to a probation violation hearing.
[1] A motion for postconviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to investigate witnesses is sufficiently pleaded when the defendant identifies t…
[2] A defendant is inherently prejudiced by the inability to make an informed decision regarding a plea bargain due to counsel's neglect.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 inherently prejudiced by his inability, due to his counsel's neglect, to make an informed decision whether to plea bargain.”
Establishes the legal standard for ineffective assistance claims based on inadequate plea advice, applying Cottle v. State
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1999, Aebi pleaded guilty to delivery of cocaine and received three years' probation. In 2000, his probation was revoked following an evidentiary h…
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 Willful And Substantial Violation Of Probation cases and more on FLexlaw
SALCINES, Judge.
Michael Aebi appeals the denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm without discussion on the first three grounds but reverse and remand for further proceedings on the remaining two grounds.
In 1999, Aebi pleaded guilty to delivery of cocaine in exchange for three years’ probation. In 2000, his probation was revoked after an evidentiary hearing, and he was sentenced to fifteen years in prison.
In his motion, Aebi claims that his defense counsel was ineffective in failing to investigate witnesses who could testify that he did not willfully and substantially violate his probation. The trial court summarily denied Aebi’s claim, finding that it was facially insufficient according to Tyler v. State, 793 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). We disagree. Aebi sufficiently identified the witnesses so that his attorney could have located them. He also describes the substance of their testimony by explaining how they could have testified that he did not willfully and substantially violate his probation. Furthermore, he alleges that the omission of their testimony prejudiced him because the court found that he willfully and substantially violated his probation. Therefore, Aebi has sufficiently alleged ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to investigate witnesses. See id. at 141. We reverse and remand for further proceedings as to this claim.
Aebi also claims that his counsel was ineffective in failing to properly advise him of the consequences of proceeding to a hearing on the violation of probation, causing him to reject a favorable plea offer from the State. A defendant is inherently prejudiced by his inability, due to his counsel’s neglect, to make an informed decision whether to plea bargain. Cottle v. State, 733 So. 2d 963 (Fla.1999). Aebi alleges that he would have accepted a favorable plea offer if he had been properly advised by his counsel of the penalties he faced; therefore, he states a prima facie claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. See Eristma v. State, 766 So. 2d 1095 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). The trial court denied this claim on the basis that Aebi had been advised of the maximum sentence for the charge at his original sentencing in 1999. However, the plea colloquy from the 1999 hearing does not conclusively refute Aebi’s claim. It does not address whether Aebi was advised by counsel of the penalties he faced if he rejected the plea and proceeded to a hearing on the violation of probation. Since nothing in the record refutes this claim, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
DAVIS and COVINGTON, JJ„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rudolf v. State, 851 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…ejudice to the defendant that Strickland requires “is inherent in the defendant’s inability to make an informed decision concerning whether to accept the plea offer.” Eristma, 766 So. 2d at 1096 (citing Cottle, 733 So. 2d at 969); see Aebi v. State, 842 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Here, Rudolf alleged that in August 1999 the State offered him five years of probation. He further alleged that he rejected the offer because his counsel told him that he would get time served, or at most, twenty-two months in p…
-
Merlan Davis v. State, 953 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…ate could not file a second charge if he went to trial; in fact, the State did. Mr. Davis alleges that he would have accepted the State’s plea offer had he been properly advised. This claim is facially sufficient under rule 3.850. See Aebi v. State, 842 So. 2d 888, 889 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Therefore, we reverse as to this claim. On remand, the postconviction court may deny this claim if it attaches portions of the record conclusively refuting Mr. Davis’ allegations. Otherwise, an evidentiary hearing is necessa…
-
Jireh Randall Kleppinger v. State, 884 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…to trial. Kleppinger states that he would have accepted the State’s plea offer if he had been properly advised. Therefore, he states a prima facie claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, alleging both deficiency and prejudice. See Aebi v. State, 842 So. 2d 888, 889 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). The trial court denied this claim because Kleppinger did not allege that counsel gave him inaccurate advice. This conclusion fails to recognize that no advice at all is just as useless as inaccurate advice. A defendant is in…
Authorities Cited
- Cottle v. State, 733 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 1999)
- Earon L. Tyler v. State, 793 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Dieu-Vieu Eristma v. State, 766 So. 2d 1095 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)