DENNIS BAKER, 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.
Dennis Baker appeals the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 motion challenging his conviction and 15-year sentence for robbery with a mask on grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel. The Fifth District affirmed the summary denial but gave Baker leave to refile with additional allegations regarding whether he would have withdrawn his plea had counsel not misadvised him about sentencing eligibility.
The court affirmed the summary denial of Baker's motion. A guilty plea cuts off inquiry into pre-plea issues, rendering the credibility challenge moot. The claim that counsel was unprofessional for advising a guilty plea in a circumstantial case was too general. Regarding the youthful offender promise, while inaccurate sentencing advice can support post-conviction relief, Baker failed to allege he would not have entered the plea but for the misadvice.
[1] A guilty plea generally forecloses inquiry into all issues that arose prior to the plea.
[2] A general allegation that counsel's advice to plead guilty was "unprofessional" is insufficient to establish ineffective assistance of counsel.
Previewing 2 of 6 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 guilty plea cuts off inquiry into all issues arising prior to the plea”
Establishes that Baker's challenge to his co-defendant's credibility was moot after his guilty plea
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBaker was convicted of robbery with a mask and sentenced to 15 years. His conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. In his Rule 3.850 mo…
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 Motion Pursuant To Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.850 cases and more on FLexlaw
SHARP, W„ J.
Baker appeals from the summary denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, in which he seeks to collaterally attack his conviction and sentence of fifteen years, for rob bery with a mask.1 His conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. Baker v. State, 845 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). He argues in this proceeding that his trial counsel was ineffective for the following reasons: for failing to attack the credibility of the state’s witness, the co-defendant; for “unprofessionally” advising him to enter a guilty plea; and for advising him to plead to a fifteen-year cap with the promise of a youthful offender sentence when Baker did not qualify because of his age. We affirm.
With regard to the first ground, a guilty plea cuts off inquiry into all issues arising prior to the plea. See Stano v. State, 520 So. 2d 278, 280 (Fla.1988); Bodden v. State, 766 So. 2d 416, 417 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). Any further attack on the credibility of Baker’s co-defendant was rendered pointless by his guilty plea.
As to Baker’s second point, that his counsel was “unprofessional” when he advised him to plead guilty in a case where the proof against him was largely circumstantial, this allegation is too general to present a claim of professional inadequacy on the part of trial counsel. We also observe, based on the record, that by entering his plea, Baker avoided the possibility of being convicted of armed robbery and thereby facing a longer potential sentence.
The third ground raised by Baker gives us some concern. He alleges that his counsel promised him a youthful offender sentence when he was not eligible for such a sentence. There is no mention in the plea transcript or the written plea agreement of a possible youthful offender sentence. The court advised that it could sentence Baker to any term up to fifteen years. However, Baker was not asked if any other promises had been made to him, other than a fifteen-year cap.
As the state points out in this case, Baker did not allege that he would not have entered his guilty plea had he known he would not be sentenced as a youthful offender. See Grosvenor v. State, 874 So. 2d 1176 (Fla.2004) (to establish prejudice in a plea case, the defendant must demonstrate a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s error, defendant would not have entered a plea). However, in plea cases, inaccurate advice by counsel as to the length of a sentence can be a basis for post-conviction relief when not conclusively refuted by the record. State v. Leroux, 689 So. 2d 235 (Fla.1996); Fisher v. State, 824 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). The essence of a challenge to the voluntariness of a plea is that trial counsel was ineffective in some way by misinforming the defendant as to sentencing rights or options, thus establishing that the defendant did not enter a knowing and voluntary plea. See Barnhill v. State, 828 So. 2d 405, 407 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).
Under these circumstances, we think Baker’s motion comes close to stating sufficient grounds for collateral relief, which would merit a remand to the trial court to either attach portions of the record conclusively refuting his allegations or to hold an evidentiary hearing. The state concedes that had Baker also alleged that but for the misadviee by counsel he would not have entered his plea, and that he seeks to withdraw it, an evidentiary hearing would be required. Accordingly we affirm without prejudice to Baker to file an amended motion which contains those essential allegations.
AFFIRMED.
SAWAYA, CJ„ and TORPY, J„ concur. . §§ 812.13(2)(c), 775.0845(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (2001).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Morris v. State, 909 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…tions period does not automatically mean that Morris was entitled to withdraw his pleas. Morris may have accepted the state’s plea offer, even if it meant a conviction on the burglary charge, in order to avoid a harsher sentence. See Baker v. State, 879 So. 2d 663, 664 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (“We also observe, based on the record, that by entering his plea [to robbery], Baker avoided the possibility of being convicted of armed robbery and thereby facing a longer potential sentence.”). Here Morris was facing a l…
-
Wisner Delice v. State, 103 So. 3d 262 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)…ficient. To sufficiently allege prejudice, Delice was required to aver that he would not have entered his no contest plea to the violation of probation charge but for his attorney’s misrepresentation regarding length of sentence. See Baker v. State, 879 So. 2d 663, 664 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). No such allegation was set forth in Delice’s amended motion. Accordingly, on remand, the trial court is directed to strike Delice’s claim as facially insufficient and provide Delice a reasonable time period in which to fil…
-
Kleparek v. State, 891 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…posed. The trial court erred in summarily denying these claims without record attachments refuting them, or an evidentiary hearing. See State v. Leroux, 689 So. 2d 235 (Fla.1996); Bedwell v. State, 878 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Baker v. State, 879 So. 2d 663 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Fisher v. State, 824 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order summarily denying these claims of affirmative misadvice and remand for attachment of portions of the record refuting them, or…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Leroux, 689 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 1996)
- Grosvenor v. State, 874 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 2004)
- Stano v. State, 520 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 1988)
- Barnhill v. State, 828 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- Williams v. State, 824 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- Fisher v. State, 824 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)
- Garrett v. State, 766 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)