NELSON TAMAYO MARTINEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Nelson Tamayo Martinez appeals the denial of his second motion for post-conviction relief based on claims that his defense counsel affirmatively misadvised him about his sentencing exposure in a probation revocation case. The court found a cognizable claim falling within the manifest injustice exception to the successive motion bar and reversed for further proceedings.
The court held that Martinez stated a cognizable claim of ineffective assistance that falls within the manifest injustice exception to the successive motion bar, and therefore reversed the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief and remanded for an evidentiary hearing.
[1] A second motion for post-conviction relief may be considered despite being successive if it falls within the manifest injustice exception.
[2] Affirmative misadvice from counsel regarding sentencing exposure can constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.
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“he is looking at thirty months, I believe, that's what he scores out to.”
Defense counsel's statement to the defendant about his sentencing exposure if he rejected the plea offer; the core misadvice claim
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMartinez was offered a fifteen-month plea deal in a probation revocation case. Before the revocation hearing, his defense counsel stated on the record…
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 Affirmative Misadvice cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Nelson Tamayo Martinez appeals an order denying his second motion for post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We remand for further proceedings.
Defendant-appellant Martinez alleges that his counsel was ineffective for affirmatively misadvising him about the amount of time he could be sentenced to if he proceeded to a hearing on revocation of probation, as opposed to accepting a favorable fifteen-month plea offer from the State. Before the revocation hearing began, defense counsel stated on the record that if the defendant rejected the fifteen-month offer, “he is looking at thirty months, I believe, that’s what he scores out to.” The defendant rejected the plea offer and proceeded with the revocation hearing.
After the revocation hearing concluded, the trial court revoked the defendant’s probation. The court informed the defendant that the legal maximum was fifteen years and sentenced the defendant to twelve years of incarceration.
In the Rule 3.850 motion now before us, the defendant alleges that the foregoing statement by trial counsel constituted affirmative misadvice that the defendant’s maximum exposure in the case was thirty months of incarceration, whereas the actual maximum exposure was far in excess of that amount. The trial court denied the defendant’s motion on the ground that it was successive. The defendant has appealed.
The defendant has stated a cognizable claim. See Rudolf v. State, 851 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Assuming the trial court was technically correct on the issue of successiveness, we think the case falls within the manifest injustice exception outlined in State v. McBride, 848 So. 2d 287 (Fla.2003). See also Hunt v. State, 922 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Morrison v. State, 932 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). The defendant’s claim of affirmative mis-advice appears to be documented on the face of the transcript. The defendant’s claim is not otherwise explained or refuted in the limited record now before us. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D). Because the present record fails to show conclusively that the appellant is entitled to no relief, id., we reverse the order now before us and remand for an evidentiary hearing, or attachment of record excerpts conclusively refuting the appellant’s claim.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Antoine L. McBRIDE, 848 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 2003)
- Rudolf v. State, 851 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Hunt v. State, 922 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- Morrison v. State, 932 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)