JAMES WILSON, 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.
James Wilson appeals the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Wilson claims his trial attorney misadvised him that a BB gun could constitute a firearm for purposes of robbery charges, leading him to plead guilty. The court reverses and remands because Wilson has stated a legally sufficient claim entitled to an evidentiary hearing.
Wilson stated a legally sufficient claim for ineffective assistance of counsel. Because Wilson alleged he would have proceeded to a jury trial had he been informed of the viable defense that a BB gun is not a firearm under Florida law, he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing or summary refutation of his claim, and the trial court erred in summarily denying his motion.
[1] A claimant for post-conviction relief is entitled to an evidentiary hearing if facts are specified which demonstrate counsel's deficient performance that prejudiced the c…
[2] A defendant states a legally sufficient claim for ineffective assistance of counsel when alleging a guilty plea was entered because counsel failed to inform the defendant…
Previewing 2 of 5 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 claimant for post-conviction relief is entitled to an evidentiary hearing if he specifies facts, not conclusively rebutted by the record, which demonstrate counsel's deficient performance that prejudiced the claimant at trial.”
Establishes the standard for when a defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a Rule 3.850 motion
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilson was charged with armed burglary, multiple counts of robbery with a firearm, and burglary across three cases. He entered a guilty plea in exchan…
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 Robbery With A Firearm cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
James Wilson appeals a trial court order which summarily denied his motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We reverse and remand the denial of his motion for the reasons set forth below.
Wilson alleged ineffective assistance of his trial counsel for failing to accurately inform .him regarding whether he could have been convicted on charges of robbery with a firearm and armed burglary based on the use of a BB gun during the offense. Defendant claimed that but for his attorney’s misadvice on this issue, he would not have accepted a guilty plea and sentence of twenty years and that he would have proceeded to trial instead.
A claimant for post-conviction relief is entitled to an evidentiary hearing if he specifies facts, not conclusively rebutted by the record, which demonstrate counsel’s deficient performance that prejudiced the claimant at trial. See Rose v. State, 617 So. 2d 291, 296 (Fla.1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 903, 114 S.Ct. 279, 126 L.Ed.2d 230 (1993). Defendants state legally sufficient claims where they allege that they entered a plea because counsel failed to inform them of a viable defense available if they proceeded to trial. See Seraphin v. State, 706 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Smith v. State, 719 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Szymanowski v. State, 771 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).
The record reflects that defendant was charged in case number 99-1797 with armed burglary, two counts of robbery with a firearm, and another count of burglary; he was charged in ease number 99-3008 with one count of robbery with a firearm; and he was charged in case number 98-26083 with two counts of robbery with a firearm. He entered a plea of guilty to the charges in exchange for a sentence at the bottom of the guidelines. He alleges that he told his counsel that in all of the incidents he had used an inoperable BB gun, but that she advised him that it would not matter whether or not the gun operated for purposes óf convicting him. The charging informations for each of Wilson’s robbery offenses allege that in the course of the robberies, either that “there were carried firearms” or “that there was carried a firearm” and none otherwise include language alleging the use of a “deadly weapon” or a “weapon.”
A BB gun is not a firearm as defined by section 790.001, Fla. Stat. (1998); see Mitchell v. State, 698 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).
A “firearm” is “any weapon which will, is designed to, or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; the frame or receiver of any such weapon; any firearm muffler or. firearm silencer; and destructive device; or any machine gun.” § 790.001. This definition excludes BB guns because they do not use the “action of an explosive.” Mitchell, 698 So. 2d at 558. While we have previously held in In re W.M., 491 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) and Emshwiller v. State, 443 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) that a BB gun could be considered a “deadly weapon” or a “weapon,” Wilson was not charged with robbery with a deadly weapon or armed robbery, but only with robbery with a firearm. Charges of robbery with a firearm require the State to prove an actual firearm was used during the commission of the crime. Tookes v. State, 842 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), Bell v. State, 645 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).
Whether the State could have done so on the robbery charges in Wilson’s case is not conclusively refuted by the record.
Thus we hold that Wilson’s allegations that he would have proceeded to a jury trial had he been informed of a viable defense to the charges of robbery with a firearm state a legally sufficient claim for ineffective assistance of counsel. As such, it was error to summarily deny it without either an evidentiary hearing or record attachments which sufficiently refute the claim. Consequently, we reverse the trial court’s summary denial of Wilson’s motion, and remand for attachment of portions of the record refuting his claim or for an evidentiary hearing.
FARMER, C.J., KLEIN and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Petz v. State, 917 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…object to a jury instruction that defined a firearm to include a “BB gun.” For purposes of section 790.001(6), Florida Statutes (Supp.1998), a “BB gun” is not a firearm. See Mitchell v. State, 698 So. 2d 555, 558 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Wilson v. State, 901 So. 2d 885, 886 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). If the trial court instructed the jury that a firearm included a “BB gun,” Mr. Petz’s claim of ineffective counsel may have merit. The postconviction court denied this claim. It concluded that the trial court did not instr…
-
J.M.P. v. State, 43 So. 3d 189 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…we find that the trial court erred in denying J.M.P.’s motions for judgment of dismissal and reverse.2 Reversed. TAYLOR and MAY, JJ., concur. . A BB gun is not a firearm. See Petz v. State, 917 So. 2d 381, 383 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Wilson v. State, 901 So. 2d 885, 886 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). . We emphasize that while a BB gun could be included within the weapons prohibited by section 790.115(2), the State here failed in its burden to show that the BB gun in question met the statutory criteria. Of course, the L…
-
Rodriguez v. State, 954 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…new none existed, then Rodriguez’s decision to accept a plea may not have been voluntary. See generally Cottle v. State, 733 So. 2d 963, 967 (Fla.1999) (ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to properly convey a plea offer); Wilson v. State, 901 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (failure to inform defendant of viable defense prior to accepting plea). An evidentiary hearing could determine whether the attorney did provide such false information and whether Rodriguez would have accepted the plea had he kno…
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 (12 total)
- Milo A. Rose v. State, 617 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 1993)
- Daniels v. State, 698 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- Mitchell v. State, 698 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Dude Emshwiller v. State, 443 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- In the Interest of W.M., 491 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- Smith v. State, 719 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Lovett v. United States, 510 U.S. 903 (U.S. 1993)
- Ischy v. United States, 510 U.S. 903 (U.S. 1993)
- Szymanowski v. State, 771 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Seraphin v. State, 706 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)