CLENTIS ELTON LUCAS, 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.
Appellant's conviction for solicitation to commit first-degree murder was affirmed in part, but reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim regarding the entrapment defense, which the record did not conclusively refute.
Trial counsel's failure to inform a defendant of the entrapment defense requires reversal and remand for an evidentiary hearing when the record does not conclusively refute the claim.
[1] When a defendant claims ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel's failure to raise an entrapment defense, reversal and remand for an evidentiary hearing is req…
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 intelligenceClentis Lucas pled nolo contendere to solicitation to commit first-degree murder of his wife and was sentenced to twenty years in prison followed by t…
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 Solicitation To Commit Murder cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Clentis Lucas, pled nolo con-tendere to one count of solicitation to commit first degree murder of his wife and was sentenced to twenty years in prison followed by ten years probation. Appellant filed a motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850 in the trial court, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, and the trial court summarily denied the motion. Appellant contends that trial counsel failed to inform him of the existence of the defense of entrapment and that trial counsel improperly advised him as to what sentence he could expect. Because the record does not conclusively refute the appellant’s claim regarding the entrapment defense, we reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing on the issue or attachment of records conclusively refuting the claim. See State v. Glosson, 462 So. 2d 1082, 1084 (Fla.1985)(rejecting the state’s contention that an informant receiving a benefit for cooperation and testimony in criminal prosecutions did not implicate due process concerns because government agents were not involved). We affirm the trial court’s denial in all other aspects.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part and REMANDED with directions.
ALLEN, KAHN and POLSTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Linfert Gipson v. State, 919 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…led to inform him of the availability of these defenses. Appellant further claims that had he been informed of these defenses he would not have entered a plea, but would have proceeded to trial. This claim is facially sufficient. See Lucas v. State, 873 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (reversing trial court’s summary denial of defendant’s claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to inform him of the existence of the defense of entrapment); see also Faulk v. State, 737 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Boyce E. Glosson, 462 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 1985)