MAURICE A. CARSWELL, 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.
Maurice Carswell appealed the denial of a 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief on ineffective assistance of counsel grounds. The court reversed the summary denial of his claim that counsel failed to advise him of his eligibility for youthful offender sentencing, but affirmed the denial of his other five claims.
The trial court properly denied relief on the ground that Carswell failed to establish prejudice, as his negotiated 21-year sentence far exceeded the six-year maximum available under the Youthful Offender Act. However, Carswell's claim that counsel failed to advise him of youthful offender eligibility is facially sufficient to entitle him to an evidentiary hearing, despite the apparent lack of prejudice.
[1] A defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a postconviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to advise of eligibility for youthful…
[2] Defense counsel must inform a defendant of all pertinent matters bearing on the choice of plea and the likely results.
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“Defense counsel must inform a defendant of 'all pertinent matters bearing on the choice of which plea to enter ... and the likely results.' Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.171(c)(2)(B).”
Establishes the legal obligation of defense counsel to advise defendants about plea considerations, including eligibility for sentencing alternatives.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn February 2000, Carswell pleaded no contest to second-degree murder and received a 21-year sentence. Carswell was eligible to be classified as a you…
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 Prejudice In Postconviction Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
KELLY, Judge.
Maurice Carswell appeals the order summarily denying his timely motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Carswell raises six grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel in his motion, only one of which has merit.
In February 2000, Carswell pleaded no contest to second-degree murder and was sentenced to a guidelines sentence of twenty-one years’ incarceration. In his motion, Carswell alleges that his counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him that based upon his age on the date of the offense and at sentencing, he was eligible to be classified as a youthful offender. He contends that a presentence investigation was never completed and that had his attorney advised him of his eligibility to be sentenced under the Youthful Offender Act, he would never have entered a plea. In denying this ground, the trial court found that Carswell failed to demonstrate prejudice. The court stated:
Defendant entered a plea to a negotiated disposition of twenty-one years in the Department of Corrections, which is fifteen years more than the six years of incarceration allowed under the youthful offender statute. Defendant cannot say that the outcome of this case would have likely been different, but for counsel’s alleged omission. This claim is denied.
“Defense counsel must inform a defendant of ‘all pertinent matters bearing on the choice of which plea to enter ... and the likely results.’ Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.171(c)(2)(B).” Walker v. State, 642 So. 2d 56, 57 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). We cannot conclude from this record whether Cars-well’s allegations regarding his attorney’s failure to advise him that he was eligible for sentencing as a youthful offender are true. However, we believe this claim is facially sufficient entitling him to an evidentiary hearing. See Sanders v. State, 432 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); State v. Brown, 525 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Lucas v. State, 461 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).
We affirm the trial court’s summary denial of the other claims raised by Carswell in his motion without discussion.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded for an evidentiary hearing.
FULMER and DAVIS, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lara v. State, 170 So. 3d 133 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)…ny was more credible than the victim’s. The State concedes error in the summary denial of ground five. See Moreland v. State, 945 So. 2d 606, 606-07 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Montgomery v. State, 869 So. 2d 27, 28 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Carswell v. State, 845 So. 2d 263, 263 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; and REMANDED. COHEN, BERGER, and WALLIS, JJ., concur.…
-
Montgomery v. State, 869 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…ed. Therefore, his claim is not refuted by the record. “Defense counsel must inform a defendant of ‘all pertinent matters bearing on the choice of which plea to enter ... and the likely results.’ Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.171(c)(2)(B).” Carswell v. State, 845 So. 2d 263, 263 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (citing Walker v. State, 642 So. 2d 56, 57 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)). We cannot conclude from this record whether Montgomery’s allegations regarding his attorney’s failure to advise him that he was eligible for sentencing as a yout…
-
Redden v. State, 275 So. 3d 1277 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019)
Authorities Cited
- Prestressed Sys., Inc. v. Goff, 461 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- State v. Brown, 525 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Walker v. State, 642 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Sanders v. State, 432 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)