LINFERT GIPSON, 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.
Appellant challenged the trial court's summary denial of his Rule 3.850 postconviction relief motion claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. The court reversed the denial of his claim that defense counsel failed to inform him of entrapment and unwillful violation of probation defenses, finding the claim facially sufficient, while affirming the denial of all other claims.
The court reversed the trial court's summary denial of the ineffective assistance claim regarding entrapment and unwillful probation violation defenses, finding the claim facially sufficient and entitled to an evidentiary hearing. The court affirmed the denial of all other claims.
[1] A claim that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to inform a defendant of potential defenses, such as entrapment or unwillful violation of probation, is facially…
[2] If a defendant claims that they would not have entered a plea had they been properly advised by counsel, the prejudice prong of Strickland v. …
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“Appellant claims that defense counsel failed to inform him of the availability of these defenses. Appellant further claims that had he been informed of these defenses he would not have entered a plea, but would have proceeded to trial. This claim is facially sufficient.”
Establishes the court's determination that the ineffective assistance claim was adequately pleaded to survive summary denial.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was involved in three criminal cases: one involving sale and possession of cocaine, and two probation violation cases. Appellant filed a 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 Strickland Prejudice Prong cases and more on FLexlaw
ON MOTION TO CORRECT AND/OR CLARIFY
PER CURIAM.
We grant appellant’s Motion to Correct and/or Clarify to the extent that we withdraw our previous opinion and substitute the following:
Appellant challenges the trial court’s summary denial of his motion for postcon-viction relief, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, in which he makes numerous claims.1 We reverse the trial court’s denial of appellant’s claim that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to inform appellant of the potential defenses of entrapment and unwillful violation of his probation. Appellant claims that defense counsel failed to inform him of the availability of these defenses. Appellant further claims that had he been informed of these defenses he would not have entered a plea, but would have proceeded to trial. This claim is facially sufficient. See Lucas v. State, 873 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (reversing trial court’s summary denial of defendant’s claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to inform him of the existence of the defense of entrapment); see also Faulk v. State, 737 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (holding that “entrapment is a defense to violating community control”); Brazeail v. State, 821 So. 2d 364, 368 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (holding that in a plea context the prejudice prong of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), is satisfied when a defendant makes a sworn statement that had he been properly advised by counsel, he would not have entered a guilty plea). On remand, if the trial court again denies relief on this claim, then it should attach those records that conclusively refute appellant’s claim. Otherwise, the trial court should hold an evidentiary hearing on this issue. We affirm as to all other claims without discussion.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part and REMANDED with directions.
BENTON, POLSTON and HAWKES, JJ., concur. .
Appellant’s 3.850 motion addresses claims relating to three separate criminal cases, handled and ruled on at the same time by the trial court (No. 01-2001-CF-3495-A, one count of sale or delivery' of cocaine and one count possession of cocaine; No. 01-2000-CF-2200-A, violation of probation; No. 63-1998-CF-0007-A, violation of probation). Contrary to the State’s argument, appellant has properly appealed and argued these cases to this court. Accordingly, our opinion relates to these cases on appeal.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984)
- Brazeail v. State, 821 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- Faulk v. State, 737 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- Clentis Elton Lucas v. State, 873 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)