STEPHON BOYKINS, 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.
Stephon Boykins appealed the summary denial of his postconviction motion challenging the voluntariness of his 1999 guilty plea. The court reversed and remanded, holding that Boykins' 2006 motion was timely filed because the two-year filing period is triggered by the date the Department of Corrections informed him of gain time forfeiture, not the date of his original judgment.
The court held that the two-year filing period for a rule 3.850 motion claiming involuntary plea based on counsel's misadvice regarding gain time is triggered by the date the Department of Corrections informed the defendant of the gain time forfeiture, not the date of the original judgment. Because Boykins did not learn of the gain time forfeiture until 2005, his 2006 motion was timely, and the summary denial was erroneous.
[1] A motion for postconviction relief is timely if filed within two years of the date a prisoner is informed of a gain time forfeiture by the Department of Corrections, as s…
[2] A guilty plea entered based on affirmative misadvice from counsel regarding the potential consequences of gain time forfeiture may render the plea involuntary.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“the triggering event for the two-year period in which to file a rule 3.850 motion is not the date of the judgment in the criminal proceeding in which the prisoner pleaded, but the date on which the DOC informed the prisoner of the gain time forfeiture and that the DOC determination of gain time constituted newly discovered information within the meaning of rule 3.850(b)(1).”
Establishes the controlling rule for calculating the timeliness deadline in gain time forfeiture cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1992, Boykins was convicted of robbery with a firearm and sentenced to twenty years with a three-year minimum mandatory. After a successful partial…
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 Earned Gain Time cases and more on FLexlaw
SILBERMAN, Judge.
Stephon Boykins appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The State properly concedes error. Therefore, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
In 1992, a jury found Boykins guilty of robbery with the use of a firearm. The trial court sentenced him to twenty years’ imprisonment with a three-year minimum mandatory. This court affirmed his judgment and sentence on direct appeal. See Boykin v. State, 676 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (table). In 1998, Boykins filed a rule 3.850 motion which the postconviction court denied. On appeal, this court affirmed in part and reversed in part, concluding that the postconviction court erred in denying one of Boykins’ claims as facially insufficient. See Boykin v. State, 725 So. 2d 1203, 1203 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). On remand in 1999, the postconviction court allowed Boykins to enter a new guilty plea to the robbery charge in exchange for a sentence of twenty years’ imprisonment with a three-year minimum mandatory.
Boykins filed his present rule 3.850 motion in December 2006, claiming that his 1999 plea was involuntary because it was entered based on counsel’s affirmative mis-advice. He asserted that the court offered him two sentencing options in exchange for a guilty plea: fifteen years’ imprisonment as a habitual felony offender (HFO) or twenty years’ imprisonment with no HFO designation. He claimed he opted for the twenty-year sentence on counsel’s advice that with earned gain time he would serve a shorter term than a day-for-day fifteen-year HFO sentence.
Boykins alleged that counsel failed to inform him that eventually he would be placed on conditional release and that any violation of conditional release could subject him to a loss of gain time, resulting in his having to complete the twenty-year sentence. Boykins stated that he was placed on conditional release in 2003 and then violated the terms of that release in 2005. Upon his return to prison, he learned that the Department of Corrections (DOC) had forfeited his earned gain time. Boykins claimed that had he known of the possible forfeiture of gain time when he pleaded guilty, he probably would have chosen the fifteen-year HFO sentence or might instead have opted to go to trial because there was a reasonable probability that he would have been convicted of a lesser charge.
The postconviction court summarily denied Boykins’ rule 3.850 motion, finding that it was untimely because it was not filed within two years of Boykins’ 1999 judgment and sentence. On appeal, the State concedes error based on Beasley v. State, 958 So. 2d 1086 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).
In Beasley, this court reiterated the following:
[T]he triggering event for the two-year period in which to file a rule 3.850 motion is not the date of the judgment in the criminal proceeding in which the prisoner pleaded, but the date on which the DOC informed the prisoner of the gain time forfeiture and that the DOC determination of gain time constituted newly discovered information within the meaning of rule 3.850(b)(1).
Id. at 1087-88 (quoting Galindez v. State, 909 So. 2d 597, 598 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)); see also Hall v. State, 891 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Spradley v. State, 868 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). Because Boykins claimed that he did not learn that the DOC had forfeited his gain time until he was returned to prison in 2005, his 2006 rule 3.850 motion was timely filed.
Accordingly, we reverse the denial of Boykins’ motion and remand for the post-conviction court to consider the merits of his allegations.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
CASANUEVA and SALCINES, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dwyer v. State, 981 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…Court of Appeal has reached contrary conclusions in Douglas v. State, 977 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (noting the motion may be timely, but remanding for dismissal without prejudice due to the facial insufficiency of the motion); Boykins v. State, 976 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (reversing denial of post-conviction relief based upon State’s concession of error on issue of timeliness); and Beasley v. State, 958 So. 2d 1086 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (reversing denial of post-conviction relief based upon state’s co…
-
Singleton v. State, 981 So. 2d 1259 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…that postconviction motions based on claims of misadvice of counsel concerning gain time eligibility or the forfeiture of gain time were timely even though filed more than two years after the finality of judgment and sentence. See Boykins v. State, 976 So. 2d 700, 700-01 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); Beasley v. State, 958 So. 2d 1086, 1087-88 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Galindez v. State, 909 So. 2d 597, 598 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Hall v. State, 891 So. 2d 1066, 1067 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Spradley v. State, 868 So. 2d 632, 633 (Fl…
-
Chandler v. State, 1 So. 3d 284 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…sel concerning gain time eligibility or gain time forfeiture were timely if they were filed within two years of the defendant learning of the actual misadvice. See, e.g., Douglas v. State, 977 So. 2d 776, 777-78 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); Boykins v. State, 976 So. 2d 700, 700-01 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); Beasley v. State, 958 So. 2d 1086, 1087-88 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Galindez v. State, 909 So. 2d 597, 598 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Hall v. State, 891 So. 2d 1066, 1067 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Spradley v. State, 868 So. 2d 632, 633 (Fl…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Stephon W. Boykin v. State, 725 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- Spradley v. State, 868 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Hall v. State, 891 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Heriberto Galindez v. State, 909 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- Artis McCALL v. State, 958 So. 2d 1086 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)
- Botka v. State, 958 So. 2d 1086 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)