SIDNEY GREEN, 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.
The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed summary denial of postconviction relief where appellant claimed his trial counsel misadvised him about his sentencing exposure before he entered a plea to a probation violation. The court held that the record did not conclusively refute his claims of counsel's misrepresentation regarding the nature and length of his sentence.
The court reversed and held that because the record did not conclusively refute appellant's claims of counsel misrepresentation, the case must be remanded for either attachment of additional record portions that conclusively show appellant is entitled to no relief or for an evidentiary hearing.
[1] A defendant's claim that counsel's misstatements regarding the nature of his sentence induced him to accept a plea is not conclusively refuted by the record if the plea f…
[2] A defendant's negative response to a trial court's question about promises made to induce a plea does not conclusively refute a postconviction claim of misrepresentation…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“appellant alleges that counsel's misstatements regarding the nature of his sentence prompted him to accept a plea that he would not have otherwise accepted”
Establishes the core claim that counsel's advice about sentencing was materially false and induced the plea
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant entered an open plea admitting to violating his probation based on counsel's advice that he would receive a downward departure sentence of s…
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 Criminal Punishment Code cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this appeal from an order summarily denying postconviction relief, appellant alleges that counsel’s misstatements regarding the nature of his sentence prompted him to accept a plea that he would not have otherwise accepted. He alleges that counsel based his advice on an expectation that a particular judge would preside over the proceeding. Because these claims are not conclusively refuted by the record, we reverse.
Appellant claims he entered ah open plea admitting to violating his probation based upon counsel’s misadvice that he would be sentenced to a downward departure sentence, six months in the First Step Sober House with three years community control and two years probation. Had counsel not so advised him, he would not have admitted the violation of probation. He also claims that prior counsel advised him that he would receive a maximum of 22 months in prison. The expected judge was ultimately replaced by another judge, and appellant was sentenced to 37.6 months in prison, the lowest permissible sentence under the Criminal Punishment Code. When appellant later questioned counsel about the outcome of the hearing, he was told that his plea was entered and unchangeable.
Nothing in the plea form or the plea colloquy refuted appellant’s claim. The transcript of the plea hearing does not show that the range of sentencing possibilities was directly discussed with appellant before the trial court accepted the plea and imposed sentence. The trial court did not inquire of appellant whether he was promised anything to induce his plea. Under State v. Leroux, 689 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 1996), this is insufficient to conclusively rebut appellant’s claim. In Leroux, the Supreme Court held that a defendant’s negative response to trial court’s question of whether anything was promised to him to induce a guilty plea did not conclusively refute a postconviction relief claim that his negotiated plea was the product of trial counsel’s alleged misrepresentations concerning the length of the sentence imposed. Appellant was never even asked such a question.
We reverse and remand for either the attachment of additional portions of the record that conclusively show appellant is entitled to no relief or an evidentiary hearing.
KLEIN, STEVENSON and GROSS, JJ., concur.