CECIL COX, 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 court affirmed the trial court's denial of Cox's Rule 3.850 motion, holding that Cox was not denied effective assistance of counsel regarding provisional credits because Gomez v. Singletary established his entitlement to those credits regardless of prior erroneous advice.
A defendant cannot establish ineffective assistance of counsel based on prior erroneous advice regarding provisional credits when a subsequent appellate decision (Gomez) establishes his entitlement to those credits.
[1] A defendant cannot establish ineffective assistance of counsel based on erroneous advice regarding provisional credits when a subsequent appellate decision establishes en…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCox received advice concerning provisional credits that he later claimed was erroneous. The trial court denied his motion for relief under Florida Rul…
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 Control Release Program cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In denying appellant’s motion for relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, the trial court ruled that “the defendant cannot establish he was erroneously misled or that he received ineffective assistance” of counsel in the form of advice he received concerning provisional credits, advice that the decision in Gomez v. Singletary, 733 So. 2d 499, 508 (Fla.1998) later proved, he alleged, had been erroneous, saying:
Indeed, under Gomez, the defendant appears to be entitled to all awardable provisional credits as a Group V offender as specified in such decision, i.e., those not awarded under the Department of Correction[s]’s erroneous retroactive application of the statutory amendment, as well as, those not awarded because of the commencement and operation of the Control Release Program, as so provided by the decision.
We agree with this analysis. See, e.g., Winkler v. Moore, 831 So. 2d 63, 71 (Fla.2002) (noting that the Department of Corrections (DOC) had restored canceled provisional credits to James Cross, pursuant to Gomez); Mayes v. Moore, 827 So. 2d 967, 970 (Fla.2002) (noting that DOC awarded Mayes 800 days of provisional credits in the wake of Gomez, which should have been awarded in the mid-90s).
AFFIRMED.
ERVIN, KAHN, and BENTON, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Nichols, 932 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 2006)…1 Teletronics, Inc., 924 So. 2d 3, 6 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Dryden v. Pedemonti, 910 So. 2d 854, 856 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Palm Beach Polo Holdings, Inc. v. Vill. of Wellington, 904 So. 2d 652, 653 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Sink v. Emerald Hill Owners Ass’n, 903 So. 2d 1047, 1048 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); Boyd v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 890 So. 2d 1240, 1242 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Swartsel v. Publix Super Mkts., Inc., 882 So. 2d 449, 453 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Hales v. Advanced Sys. Design, Inc., 855 So. 2d 1232, 1233 (F…
-
E. Atl. Realty & Inv. Inc. v. Gsomr LLC, 14 So. 3d 1215 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…mbiguous to preclude its enforceability. We agree with BJV.9 In concluding that the proposal was ambiguous, the trial court relied on State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Nichols, 932 So. 2d 1067 (Fla.2006), and Sink v. Emerald Hill Owners Ass’n, Inc., 903 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). Neither supports the trial court’s conclusion regarding the specific proposal at issue here. In Nichols, two pending claims existed at the time the settlement proposal at issue in that case was made: a PIP claim against State F…
Authorities Cited
- Gomez v. Singletary, 733 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 1998)
- Mayes v. Moore, 827 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 2002)
- Winkler v. Moore, 831 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 2002)