ROBERT ADAMS, 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.
Robert Adams challenged his conviction for DUI manslaughter and DUI with serious bodily injury, arguing his counsel was ineffective for advising him to plead guilty to DUI with serious bodily injury when he was the only person injured. The court reversed the trial court's summary denial of this ineffective assistance claim because Smith v. State had already established that a defendant cannot be convicted of DUI with serious bodily injury when the defendant is the only injured party.
Yes. The court reversed the trial court's summary denial of Adams' ineffective assistance claim because the trial court erred in believing that Smith v. State (which held that a defendant cannot be convicted of DUI with serious bodily injury when the defendant is the only injured party) had to apply retroactively. Since Smith was decided before Adams' plea, counsel should have been aware of this precedent before advising Adams to plead to the charge, and there was no factual basis to support the plea.
[1] A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is facially sufficient when a defendant alleges counsel advised them to plead guilty to a charge for which there is no factua…
[2] A defendant cannot be convicted of driving under the influence with serious bodily injury when the only person who sustained an injury was the defendant.
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“a defendant could not be convicted of DUI with serious bodily injury when the only person that sustained an injury was the defendant”
Establishes the controlling legal principle from Smith v. State that undermines the factual basis for Adams' plea
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn October 22, 2001, Adams was convicted of two counts of DUI manslaughter and one count of DUI with serious bodily injury, sentenced to fifteen years…
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 Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Robert Adams, challenges the trial court’s order summarily denying his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion arguing four grounds for relief. Because the trial court erred in summarily denying appellant’s claim that his counsel was ineffective for advising him to enter a plea to a charge of driving under the influence (“DUI”) with serious bodily injury, we reverse. We affirm the trial court’s denial of appellant’s remaining claims without further discussion.
On October 22, 2001, appellant was convicted of two counts of DUI manslaughter and one count of DUI with serious bodily injury and was sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment on count one, a consecutive term of five years’ imprisonment followed by five years’ probation on count two, and a concurrent term of five years’ probation on count three. In his postconviction motion, appellant alleged that counsel was ineffective for advising him to plead guilty to DUI with serious bodily injury because the only person with serious bodily injury was appellant. Appellant alleged that he would not have pled to this charge absent counsel’s advice. Thus, appellant stated a facially sufficient claim for postconviction relief. Brazeail v. State, 821 So. 2d 364, 368 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).
On September 6, 2001, this Court issued an opinion stating that a defendant could not be convicted of DUI with serious bodily injury when the only person that sustained an injury was the defendant. Smith v. State, 793 So. 2d 1118 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). In appellant’s case, the information charged that appellant committed serious bodily injury to himself. Moreover, the prosecutor stated that the factual basis for the charge of DUI with serious bodily injury was that appellant was injured in the accident. Thus, there was no factual basis to support appellant’s plea. The trial court denied this claim under the mistaken belief that the decision in Smith would have to apply retroactively to appellant’s conviction. However, Smith was decided prior to the entry of appellant’s plea, and counsel should have been aware of this decision before he advised his client to enter a plea to the charge of DUI with serious bodily injury. Because the trial court erred by denying this claim, we reverse the denial of this portion of appellant’s motion and remand for an evidentiary hearing.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
WOLF, LEWIS, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Brazeail v. State, 821 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- Lucretia S. Smith v. State, 793 So. 2d 1118 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)