MANUEL ALFARO, 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.
Court reversed denial of postconviction relief motion and remanded for evidentiary hearing where defendant claimed counsel failed to explain gain time credits affecting a plea bargain offer.
When a defendant claims counsel failed to explain how gain time and jail credit would reduce a plea offer, and the record does not conclusively refute the claim, the case must be remanded for an evidentiary hearing.
[1] When a defendant claims ineffective assistance of counsel regarding a rejected plea offer and the record does not conclusively refute the claim, remand for evidentiary he…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAlfaro was arrested and offered a thirty-nine-month plea bargain, which he rejected because his appointed counsel failed to explain that gain time and…
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 Credit For Jail Time Served cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Manuel Alfaro appeals an order denying his motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Defendant-appellant Alfaro alleges that after he was arrested, he was offered a thirty-nine-month plea bargain which he did not accept because his appointed counsel failed to explain that the offered sentence would be shortened by gain time and credit for jail time served. He contends that had this been explained, he would have accepted the plea.
The defendant later accepted a less favorable plea bargain which was offered by the court, consisting of five years incarceration followed by community control and probation. The materials in the limited record now before us do not conclusively confirm or refute the existence of the earlier thirty-nine-month plea offer which the defendant claims the State made. Since the record does not at this point conclusively refute the defendant’s claim, we remand the case for an evidentiary hearing or attachment of record excerpts conclusively refuting the defendant’s claim. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(d); Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(d); Margiotti v. State, 844 So. 2d 829, 830 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). We express no opinion on the merits of the defendant’s claim but only say at this point that the record now before us does not conclusively refute it.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.