MARIO PLANCARTE, 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.
The court held that a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to inform a defendant of potential sentencing under the 10/20/Life statute is facially sufficient and requires further proceedings if not conclusively refuted by the record.
Appellant was convicted of aggravated battery with a firearm and sentenced under the 10/20/Life statute. He filed a motion for postconviction relief, …
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 Aggravated Battery With A Firearm cases and more on FLexlaw
CANADY, Judge.
Mario Planearte appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of claims two through eight without comment. We reverse the denial of claim one and remand for further proceedings.
A jury convicted Planearte of aggravated battery with a firearm for shooting the victim with a pistol. The trial court sentenced Planearte to twenty-five years’ prison with a twenty-five-year minimum mandatory pursuant to section 775.087(2)(a)(3), Florida Statutes (2003) (the 10/20/Life statute), after the jury found that Plan-earte had discharged a firearm and inflicted great bodily harm to the victim during the commission of the aggravated battery.
In claim one of his motion, Planearte claimed that counsel was ineffective for failing to inform him that he was subject to sentencing under the 10/20/Life statute. Planearte alleged that but for counsel’s deficiency, he would have accepted a five-year plea offer from the State rather than go to trial. This is a facially sufficient claim. See Smith v. State, 909 So. 2d 972 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Garcia v. State, 736 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); see also Cottle v. State, 733 So. 2d 963 (Fla.1999). And the postconviction court has failed to provide a record basis conclusively showing that Planearte is entitled to no relief. We reject the postconviction court’s conclusion that Planearte was as a matter of law chargeable — solely by virtue of notice of the charge brought against him — with knowledge of the maximum penalty to which he was exposed and therefore would be unable to show that he was prejudiced by counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness. On remand, the postconviction court shall attach records that conclusively refute the claim or, if necessary, hold an evidentiary hearing.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
SALCINES and WALLACE, JJ„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Plancarte v. State, 93 So. 3d 1102 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)…present matter. Planearte v. State, 49 So. 3d 758 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (table decision); Planearte v. State, 36 So. 3d 99 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (table decision); Planearte v. State, 989 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (table decision); Planearte v. State, 975 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). . "The term scrivener’s error refers to a mistake in the written sentence that is at variance with the oral pronouncement of sentence or the record but not those errors that are the result of a judicial determination or error.”…
-
Hoover Emilson Arroyave v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2022)…e years' prison. Nor could Mr. Arroyave be expected, as the postconviction court further suggested, to refer to the statutes cited in the charging information to ascertain for himself the applicable minimum mandatory terms. See Plancarte v. State, 975 So. 2d 487, 487 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) ("We reject the postconviction court's conclusion that Plancarte was as a matter of law chargeable—solely by virtue of notice of the charge brought against him—with knowledge of the maximum penalty to which he was exposed and…
Authorities Cited
- Cottle v. State, 733 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 1999)
- Garcia v. State, 736 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Smith v. State, 909 So. 2d 972 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)