JOE CARRINGTON, 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.
Joe Carrington appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's denial, finding the motion facially insufficient, but allowed Carrington an opportunity to file an amended motion within 30 days.
The trial court's summary denial was affirmed because Carrington's motion failed to specifically identify how counsel's performance fell below that of reasonably competent counsel and failed to demonstrate that but for such deficiency he would not have entered the plea. However, Carrington was afforded an opportunity to amend the facially insufficient motion within 30 days if he could do so in good faith.
[1] A motion for postconviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel must specifically identify how counsel's performance fell below that of reasonably competent…
[2] A defendant should be afforded an opportunity to amend a facially insufficient motion for postconviction relief if the defendant can do so in good faith.
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“The motion fails to specifically identify how counsel's performance fell below that of reasonably competent counsel and fails to demonstrate that but for counsel's deficient performance appellant would not have entered the plea and would have insisted on going to trial.”
Establishes the two-part test required for ineffective assistance of counsel claims in the postconviction context
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCarrington entered a negotiated plea to three third-degree felony counts and was placed on probation. The negotiated plea resulted in a sentence below…
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 Negotiated Plea Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
We affirm the trial court’s summary denial of appellant’s motion for postconviction relief. Appellant entered a negotiated plea to three third-degree felony counts and was placed on probation. His motion generally alleged that counsel performed deficiently and provided misadvice.1 Our review of the record reveals that counsel negotiated a very favorable plea bargain for appellant and that the factual basis was sufficient.
The motion fails to specifically identify how counsel’s performance fell below that of reasonably competent counsel and fails to demonstrate that but for counsel’s deficient performance appellant would not have entered the plea and would have insisted on going to trial. See Grosvenor v. State, 874 So.2d 1176, 1179 (Fla.2004). Appellant should be afforded at least one opportunity to amend the facially insufficient motion if he can do so in good faith. Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 754, 762 (Fla.2007).
Accordingly, affirmance is without prejudice for appellant to file a facially sufficient motion within thirty (30) days of the date of this court’s mandate if he can do so in good faith. Appellant is advised that, if successful in collaterally attacking his plea, he will again be facing five years in prison on each count including the one-year mandatory minimum terms of incarceration he *1258was facing on two of the counts.2
POLEN, STEVENSON and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 2007)
- Grosvenor v. State, 874 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 2004)
- Stano v. State, 520 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 1988)
- Gidney v. State, 925 So. 2d 1076 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)