DANIEL MORGAN, 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.
Daniel Morgan appeals a denial of postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, arguing that his federal sentence was improperly enhanced based on prior Florida convictions due to trial counsel's misadvice about the consequences of his pleas. The Third District affirmed the denial, holding that even if misadvice occurred regarding future enhancement consequences, Morgan received correct advice from the trial court in 1997 and cannot obtain relief.
The Third District affirmed the denial of relief, holding that as a matter of public policy, a defendant is not entitled to relief for misadvice regarding possible sentence-enhancing consequences of a plea if the defendant commits a new crime in the future. Additionally, even under the Fourth District's contrary rule permitting such relief, Morgan would not be entitled to relief because the issue of future enhancement was addressed in his 1997 plea colloquy when the trial judge explicitly warned him about potential habitual offender sentencing.
[1] A defendant is not entitled to postconviction relief based on affirmative misadvice from counsel regarding the potential sentence-enhancing consequences of a plea if the…
[2] Even if a defendant received affirmative misadvice from counsel regarding future sentence enhancement, a subsequent plea colloquy where the court correctly advises the de…
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 not entitled to relief where he has been given affirmative misadvice regarding the possible sentence-enhancing consequences of a plea in the event that the defendant commits a new crime in the future.”
Establishes the Third District's bright-line public policy rule denying relief for counsel misadvice about future enhancement consequences
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMorgan was convicted of federal criminal charges in 2001 and filed a Rule 3.850 motion challenging the enhancement of his federal sentence based on th…
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 Time-Barred Claims cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Daniel Morgan appeals an order denying his motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm.
I.
Defendant-appellant Morgan was convicted of federal criminal charges in 2001. In his Rule 3.850 motion he asserts that his federal sentence was enhanced on account of three prior Florida convictions entered in Miami-Dade County circuit court case numbers 94-48779 (“the 1994 case”), 95-11143 (“the 1995 case”), and 97-29490 (“the 1997 case”).
In the 1994 and 1995 cases the defendant alleges that he received affirmative misadvice of his trial counsel. The defendant alleges that his trial counsel told him that if he entered a plea in those cases, the charges would be expunged and the convictions would not be used in the future for any other prosecutions. The defendant contends that this was affirmative misad-vice regarding the future sentence enhancing consequences if he committed a new crime.
The trial court correctly denied relief on this point. This court has held that as a matter of public policy, “[a] defendant is not entitled to relief where he has been given affirmative misadvice regarding the possible sentence-enhancing consequences of a plea in the event that the defendant commits a new crime in the future.” Scott v. State, 813 So. 2d 1025, 1026 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (citations omitted).
We acknowledge that there is a division of authority on this issue within the Florida district courts of appeal, and that at present, the Fourth District holds that relief is available on this type of postconviction claim. See id. at 1027 (citing Smith v. State, 784 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)). Ordinarily this court certifies conflict with the Fourth District in cases that present the issue now before us. Id.
Under the specific facts of this case, however, certification of conflict is not necessary because even under the Fourth District rule, the defendant would not be entitled to relief. That is so because the issue of future enhancement was addressed in his 1997 plea colloquy. In 1997 the defendant entered into a plea bargain whereby he pled guilty to the 1997 case and entered a plea of admission to violation of probation in the 1994 and 1995 cases. The trial judge told the defendant:
THE COURT: You will be adjudicated, which means you will be convicted of all those felonies. So I can tell you down the road, be careful because later on they can try to sentence you as an H.O.* So be careful of that; okay?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir. TR. Nov. 14,1997, at 4. Thus, assuming for purposes of discussion that the defendant received affirmative misadvice of counsel with respect to the 1994 and 1995 cases, he received correct advice from the court in 1997 and the current motion on this point is time-barred.
The defendant’s remaining claims are time-barred and do not amount to newly-discovered evidence.
Affirmed.
*
Habitual offender.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Robby Eugene Hogan v. State, 931 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…t federal scheme does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel). This court has also held that affirmative misadvice regarding possible sentence enhancement consequences of a plea does not warrant postconviction relief. See Morgan v. State, 879 So. 2d 1243, 1244 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (trial counsel’s alleged misadvice regarding possible sentence-enhancing consequences of a plea in the event the defendant committed new crimes does not warrant postconviction relief); Jones v. State, 838 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 3d…
-
Pease v. State, 965 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…was not sentenced under the guidelines; he was sentenced under the Criminal Punishment Code. Even so, the trial judge cleared up that misadvice when he correctly advised appellant of the applicable minimum and maximum penalties. Cf. Morgan v. State, 879 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004), rev. denied, 894 So. 2d 971 (Fla.2005). Appellant further alleged that his counsel advised him that “the Judge will want to re-instate” probation and that “she could seek and likely obtain a straight 365-day county jail sentence…
Authorities Cited
- Smith v. State, 784 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Vrain Scott v. State, 813 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)