WILLIAM FLOYD ALEXANDER, 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.
William Floyd Alexander appealed the summary denial of his post-conviction relief motion, arguing his trial counsel misadvised him about gain time eligibility and failed to inform him of a mandatory ten-year sentence for armed robbery, causing him to enter a guilty plea he would not have entered otherwise. The court reversed the summary denial, finding that Alexander's allegation that he would not have pled nolo contendere if properly advised was sufficient to survive summary denial and proceed to a merits hearing.
The court held that a defendant need not explicitly allege both that he would not have pled nolo contendere and that he would have proceeded to trial, as these allegations are logically intertwined; if a defendant pleads not guilty, he will necessarily proceed to trial, and if he goes to trial, he will not have pled guilty or nolo contendere. Therefore, Alexander's allegations were sufficiently similar to the Hoggs requirement to survive summary denial.
[1] A defendant seeking post-conviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel related to a plea agreement need not allege both that he would not have pled and tha…
[2] A trial court's summary denial of a motion for post-conviction relief may be reversed and remanded when the defendant's allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel a…
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“We find that these allegations are close enough to the Hoggs' requirement and a defendant need not allege both that he would not have pled nolo contendere and would have gone to trial.”
Establishes the court's holding that explicit allegation of both elements is not required; logical implication suffices.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAlexander entered a plea of nolo contendere to multiple charges including manslaughter and armed robbery with a firearm, receiving a fifteen-year sent…
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 Gain Time Eligibility cases and more on FLexlaw
PETERSON, J.
William Floyd Alexander appeals the trial court’s summary denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief. Alexander alleges that he would not have entered a plea of nolo contendere to multiple charges including manslaughter and armed robbery with a firearm if his trial counsel had not misadvised him that he would only have to serve 85% of his fifteen-year sentence because of gain time eligibility, and if trial counsel had not failed to advise him that he would incur a mandatory ten-year term for armed robbery.
The trial court found Alexander’s motion legally insufficient under Hoggs v. State, 857 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). In Hoggs, this court denied post-conviction relief based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel because the defendant failed to allege that, “but for counsel’s advice, he would have proceeded to trial.” In the instant case, Alexander alleged that if he had known that he would have to serve a mandatory ten-year sentence without being eligible for gain time, he would not have entered a plea. We find that these allegations are close enough to the Hoggs’ requirement and a defendant need not allege both that he would not have pled nolo contendere and would have gone to trial. Logically, if a defendant pleads not guilty, then he will proceed to trial. Likewise, if the defendant goes to trial, then by necessity he would not have pled guilty or nolo contendere.
We reverse the summary denial order and remand to allow the trial court to address the merits of Alexander’s allegations that his defense counsel’s alleged misadvice and failure to advise caused him to forgo his right to trial.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
SAWAYA, C.J., and TORPY, J., concur.