MARTIN A. HERING, 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.
Martin Hering appealed the trial court's summary denial of his Rule 3.850 postconviction motion. The Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed in part, finding that Hering stated two facially sufficient claims for ineffective assistance of counsel despite the motion's disorganized presentation.
The court held that Hering stated two facially sufficient claims for ineffective assistance of counsel despite the disorganized presentation of his forty-five-page motion. The trial court erred in summarily denying these claims without addressing their merits, though any other claims Hering attempted to raise were too unclear to discern.
[1] A motion for postconviction relief may state a facially sufficient claim even if the factual allegations are scattered throughout the document.
[2] Ineffective assistance of counsel claims can be based on counsel's failure to communicate a favorable plea offer.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“However, we find that Hering's motion states two facially sufficient claims, and therefore reverse the summary denial.”
The court's holding that despite the motion's disorganized presentation, it contained legally sufficient allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHering alleged his trial counsel failed to communicate a favorable plea offer from the trial judge, incorrectly told him he faced a 76-month minimum 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 Plea Offer Communication cases and more on FLexlaw
LAWSON, J.
Martin A. Hering appeals the trial court’s order denying his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion as legally insufficient. We are sympathetic to the fact that it is difficult to ferret out the relevant factual allegations from Hering’s long, rambling motion, and to relate those allegations to Hering’s claims for postcon-viction relief. However, we find that Her-ing’s motion states two facially sufficient claims, and therefore reverse the summary denial.
Hering alleges that his trial counsel failed to communicate a favorable plea offer from the trial judge; mistakenly told him that he faced a minimum guidelines sentence of 76 months in prison, when he scored only 34 months; failed to inform him that he faced possible sentencing as a PRR; and, made other omissions that caused him to incorrectly assess his chances for success at trial. Much later in his motion, Hering also alleges that he would have accepted the favorable plea offer and received a much more favorable sentence, but for the inadequate communication from his counsel. These allegations, though scattered throughout various sections in Hering’s forty-five-page motion, state a facially sufficient claim. See, e.g., Mathis v. State, 848 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).
Second, Hering claims that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to fingerprint evidence that was produced at trial without prior disclosure in discovery. Hering alleges that if his counsel had objected to the State’s prejudicial discovery violation, the fingerprint evidence would have been excluded from trial and he would have been acquitted. Additional details, explaining the significance of the evidence and circumstances of the alleged discovery violation, are also included in Hering’s motion. This claim should also have been considered on the merits. See generally, Strickland, v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).
Therefore, we reverse with directions that the trial court address the merits of these two claims. To the extent that Herring attempted to state any other claims for relief, we could not discern them either. Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s summary denial as to any additional claims.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.
PALMER, C.J., and GRIFFIN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kavine Thompson v. State, 985 So. 2d 1177 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…WELLS, Judge. The defendant petitions for a writ of mandamus, compelling the lower court to hold a hearing and to rule on his post-conviction motion filed over seventeen months ago. We grant the petition and issue the writ. See Fletcher v. State, 973 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (granting petition for writ of mandamus and issuing writ compelling the lower court to hold a hearing and to rule on a post-conviction motion not heard for almost nineteen months); Johnson v. State, 938 So. 2d 639, 640 (Fla. 5th D…
-
Randle v. State, 992 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…Judge. The defendant seeks a petition for writ of mandamus, compelling the lower court to hold a hearing and to rule on his post-conviction motion filed on or about January 8, 2007. We grant the petition and issue the writ. See Fletcher v. State, 973 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (granting a petition for writ of mandamus where the lower court had not heard or ruled on a post-conviction motion for nineteen months); Johnson v. State, 938 So. 2d 639, 640 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (“Mandamus lies to compel a trial c…
Authorities Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984)
- Mathis v. State, 848 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)