FRANK JACKSON, 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.
Frank Jackson appealed the trial court's summary denial of his postconviction ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Jackson alleged his trial counsel misinformed him about the maximum sentence he faced, causing him to reject a favorable plea offer. The court reversed as to this claim, finding the record did not conclusively refute it.
The court held that Jackson stated a facially sufficient claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The record did not conclusively refute that: (1) counsel misinformed him about the maximum sentence (15 years vs. 30 years), (2) he would have accepted the plea offer but for the misadvice, and (3) acceptance would have resulted in a lesser sentence (5 years vs. 30 years).
[1] A defendant may establish a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel for rejecting a plea offer by proving that counsel failed to communicate the offer or mi…
[2] Misinformation from counsel regarding the maximum sentence a defendant faces can constitute actionable ineffective assistance of counsel, particularly when it induces the…
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 claim that misinformation supplied by counsel induced a defendant to reject a favorable plea offer can constitute actionable ineffective assistance of counsel.”
Establishes the legal principle that counsel's misinformation about plea offers can support an ineffective assistance claim
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJackson was offered a plea deal for five years but rejected it based on counsel's advice that the maximum sentence was fifteen years. After conviction…
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 Rejection cases and more on FLexlaw
WARNER, J.
The appellant, Frank Jackson, moved for postconviction relief on six grounds. The trial court summarily denied them all, and Jackson appéals the denial of four of the grounds. We affirm as to all but one claim. We conclude that the record does not conclusively refute his claim that his counsel was ineffective in misadvising him regarding the maximum sentence he could receive, which caused him to reject a very favorable plea offer from the state. On this issue, we reverse.
“A claim that misinformation supplied by counsel induced a defendant to reject a favorable plea offer can constitute actionable ineffective assistance of counsel.” Steel v. State, 684 So. 2d 290, 291 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
The supreme court has set forth a three-part test to apply when examining whether trial counsel was effective in instances where a plea agreement has been offered by the state. Cottle v. State, 733 So. 2d 963, 967 (Fla.1999).
A prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel based on the rejection of a plea offer is made if a defendant proves: “(1) counsel failed to communicate a plea offer or misinformed defendant concerning the penalty faced, (2) defendant would have accepted the plea offer but for the inadequate notice, and (3) acceptance of the State’s plea offer would have resulted in a lesser sentence.” Id. (emphasis added). Here, Jackson sets forth a facially sufficient claim of ineffective assistance. Jackson alleges that counsel misinformed him by advising him that the maximum sentence was fifteen years, instead of the thirty years he actually faced. He alleges that he would have accepted the state’s plea offer of five years but for counsel’s misadvice. Instead, after conviction, he was sentenced to thirty years. See also Ortiz v. State, 882 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (legally sufficient claim where defendant alleged that had he known he could be sentenced as a PRR, he would have accepted the more favorable plea offer); Wright v. State, 892 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (legally sufficient claim where defendant asserted that had counsel not misadvised him as to the maximum sentence, he would have accepted the state’s plea offer); Reed v. State, 903 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (same).
As Jackson’s claim is not conclusively refuted by the record, we reverse and remand for the trial court to attach portions of the record refuting the claim or to hold an evidentiary hearing.
POLEN and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lester v. State, 15 So. 3d 728 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…commended acceptance of the plea, we think that the Morgan factors apply, because the defendant testified that he would have accepted the plea had counsel advised him of a potential thirty to forty-year sentence as a HVFO. See also Jackson v. State, 987 So. 2d 233 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). This case is most closely analogous to Lewis v. State, 751 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). In Lewis, the state charged the defendant with sale of cocaine. His attorney conveyed the state’s offer of one year in prison. Although…
-
Kenson Louima v. State, 247 So. 3d 564 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)…maximum penalty that he or she faces or for misadvising the defendant that he or she does not qualify as a habitual offender if a plea is rejected. See, e.g., Alcorn; Ramos v. State, 141 So. 3d 643, 644-45 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014); Jackson v. State, 987 So. 2d 233, 234 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); Cowart v. State, 864 So. 2d 583, 585 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). This case presents a claim of misadvice as to factual information which was necessary to allow the defendant to weigh whether to accept the plea offer. Couns…
Authorities Cited
- Cottle v. State, 733 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 1999)
- Steel v. State, 684 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Forrest P. Reed v. State, 903 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)
- Andrews v. State, 892 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- Venzal v. State, 882 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)