GERARD B. SMITH, 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.
Gerard Smith appealed the denial of his motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, challenging his nolo contendere plea based on alleged counsel misadvice about gain time eligibility. The court affirmed dismissal of his first claim but reversed the denial of his second claim, finding the record did not conclusively refute his allegation of counseled misrepresentation.
Misrepresentations by counsel regarding sentence length or gain time eligibility can support postconviction relief through withdrawal of a plea. Under Rule 3.850, the record must conclusively refute an otherwise cognizable claim to support summary denial. Here, the plea colloquy record does not conclusively refute Smith's allegation of counsel misadvice, requiring remand for either conclusive record evidence or an evidentiary hearing.
[1] Misrepresentations by counsel regarding sentence length or gain time eligibility can form the basis for postconviction relief, including the withdrawal of a plea.
[2] A claim for postconviction relief cannot be summarily denied if the record does not conclusively rebut the allegations.
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“Misrepresentations by counsel as to the length of a sentence or eligibility for gain time can be the basis for postconviction relief in the form of leave to withdraw a plea.”
Establishes the legal standard for counsel misrepresentation claims in postconviction relief proceedings.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSmith entered a nolo contendere plea to his charges. He subsequently filed a postconviction motion alleging his counsel misadvised him regarding his g…
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
NORTHCUTT, Judge.
Gerard B. Smith appeals the denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm the circuit court’s dismissal of claim one as facially insufficient without further comment. We reverse the denial of claim two and remand for further consideration of that claim.
In claim two of his motion, Smith alleged that he pleaded nolo contendere to his charges based on his counsel’s misadvice regarding his gain time eligibility and resulting release date. The circuit court summarily denied the claim, ruling that Smith’s allegation was refuted by the record of Smith’s plea colloquy, at which it was clear that Smith’s desire to have his sentence run coterminous with another sentence arising from a violation of probation would not be accommodated. However, the court failed to address Smith’s claim that he pleaded only because of counsel’s misadvice about gain time.
Misrepresentations by counsel as to the length of a sentence or eligibility for gain time can be the basis for postconviction relief in the form of leave to withdraw a plea. State v. Leroux, 689 So. 2d 235 (Fla.1996). Additionally, rule 3.850 explic itly requires that the record “conclusively” rebut an otherwise cognizable claim if it is to be denied without a hearing. Id. at 237. Here, the record of Smith’s plea colloquy simply does not refute his claim that his counsel misadvised him.
Since the record attached to the circuit court’s order does not conclusively refute Smith’s claim, we reverse and remand for the court either to attach record evidence conclusively refuting the claim or to conduct an evidentiary hearing. See Kleppinger v. State, 884 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). We note that in its response to Smith’s motion in the circuit court, the State expressed its difficulty understanding why Smith would risk a possible eleven-year prison sentence based on his complaint that he had served one more month in jail than he had anticipated. We, too, caution Smith that if he ultimately withdraws his plea and avoids the plea agreement, the State will be released from the plea agreement as well. See Green v. State, 857 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).
Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded.
CASANUEVA and DAVIS, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Youngblood v. State, 930 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…blood’s rule 3.850 motion as untimely and remand for an evidentiary hearing. We caution Youngblood that if he ultimately withdraws his plea and voids the plea agreement, the State will be released from the plea agreement as well. See Smith v. State, 907 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). Reversed and remanded. CASANUEVA, DAVIS, and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Leroux, 689 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 1996)
- Derejtova, Inc. v. RAY Corp., Inc., 857 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
- Williams v. State, 884 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)