ANTHONY SMALLS, 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.
Anthony Smalls appealed the summary denial of his rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief, challenging the validity of his guilty plea to burglary of a dwelling. The court affirmed the denial of most claims but reversed the summary denial of his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, finding that the record did not establish that the detached garage constituted a dwelling as required by law.
The court reversed the summary denial of appellant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim regarding the burglary of a dwelling charge, finding that his allegations constituted a facially sufficient claim. The court affirmed the summary denial of all other claims raised in the motion.
[1] A detached garage may qualify as part of a dwelling for burglary purposes if the surrounding yard is "substantially enclosed."
[2] A claim that a guilty plea was involuntary due to counsel's erroneous advice regarding the factual basis for a charge is facially sufficient for postconviction relief.
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 detached garage may qualify as part of a dwelling if the yard is "substantially enclosed."”
Establishes the legal standard for determining whether a detached garage qualifies as part of a dwelling under Florida law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant pleaded guilty to burglary of a dwelling and battery, and was sentenced as a habitual felony offender to 15 years in prison concurrent with …
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 Prejudice Prong Of Ineffective Assistance Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant seeks review of the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.
Pursuant to a guilty plea, appellant was sentenced as an habitual felony offender to 15 years in prison for burglary of a dwelling, concurrent with one year in prison for battery. In his motion, appellant raised several claims.
We affirm without discussion the summary denial of all except the claim that his guilty plea was involuntary because his counsel advised him to enter the plea to burglary of a dwelling when no factual basis existed to support the charge. Specifically, appellant alleges that, had his counsel been aware of the definition of a dwelling, he would have known that the detached garage involved in appellant’s crime did not qualify as a dwelling. Appellant further alleges that, had his counsel properly advised him regarding the elements of burglary of a dwelling, he would not have entered a plea.
Before appellant entered his plea, the state offered its factual basis, which included the representation that appellant broke into a detached garage in the victim’s enclosed yard. Unfortunately, appellant was not asked whether the state’s recitation of the facts was accurate. A detached garage may qualify as part of a dwelling if the yard is “substantially enclosed.” See McAllister v. State, 859 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).
However, appellant has alleged that the victim’s yard was not “substantially enclosed” and that, as a result, the garage did not qualify as part of a dwelling. The portions of the record attached by the trial court to its order do not establish that the yard was, in fact, “substantially enclosed.” If appellant’s allegation is correct, no factual basis existed to support a conviction for burglary of a dwelling. Appellant further claims that he would not have entered his guilty plea but for his counsel’s ineffectiveness. As such, appellant’s allegations constitute a facially sufficient claim for ineffective assistance of counsel. See Brazeail v. State, 821 So. 2d 364, 367-68 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (stating that the prejudice prong of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), is satisfied when the defendant states that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty); Sassnett v. State, 838 So. 2d 650, 652 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (reversing a summary denial of a rule 3.850 claim for ineffective assistance of counsel because defense counsel appeared to have been unfamiliar with the elements of burglary of a dwelling).
We reverse the summary denial of that portion of appellant’s motion that claims his attorney was ineffective because the attorney advised him to enter a plea to burglary of a dwelling when no factual basis existed to support that charge. Should the trial court again summarily deny this claim on remand, it shall attach to the order such portions of the record as conclusively show that appellant is entitled to no relief; otherwise, it shall hold an evidentiary hearing. In all other respects, the order is affirmed.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; and REMANDED, with directions.
WEBSTER, BENTON, and POLSTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smalls v. State, 18 So. 3d 606 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…n the prosecutor’s assertion at the plea hearing that the garage was in the victim’s enclosed yard. We reversed the order in part and remanded for record attachments conclusively refuting the claim or for an evidentiary hearing. See Smalls v. State, 973 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). On remand, the trial court denied Appellant’s motion to appoint postconviction counsel. The State filed a response to Appellant’s postconviction relief motion and attached copies of photographs of what it claimed was the victim…
-
Ward v. State, 984 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…ors, he would not have pleaded guilty [or no contest] and would have insisted on going to trial.” Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59, 106 S.Ct. 366, 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985); see also Zakrzewski v. State, 866 So. 2d 688, 694 (Fla.2003); Smalls v. State, 973 So. 2d 630, 631-32 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008); Brown v. State, 967 So. 2d 440, 443 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). Although record attachments to the trial court’s order conclusively demonstrate that appellant understood the maximum sentence he would face if tried on count I o…
-
Jung v. State, 248 So. 3d 231 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)…as facially sufficient. We remand for the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing on that claim or to attach portions of the record conclusively refuting it. See Odom v. State, 782 So. 2d 510, 510 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); see also Smalls v. State, 973 So. 2d 630, 631- 32 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (“If appellant’s allegation is correct, no factual basis existed to support a conviction for burglary of a dwelling. Appellant further claims that he would not have entered his guilty plea but for his counsel’s ineffecti…
Authorities Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984)
- Brazeail v. State, 821 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- Donnie K. Sassnett v. State, 838 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)
- McALLISTER v. State, 859 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)