CAL HAYNES, 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.
Cal Haynes appeals the trial court's summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The appellate court affirmed the denial of grounds one and three, but reversed and remanded ground two, which alleged ineffective assistance of counsel based on the trial counsel's erroneous advice regarding a plea offer.
The trial court's summary denial of ground two was reversed and remanded. The court held that Haynes stated a viable claim for ineffective assistance of counsel, as the claim was not refuted by the record, and that the prior Rule 3.170 motion denial does not preclude relief on the different ineffective assistance claim presented in the Rule 3.850 motion.
[1] A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on erroneous advice regarding speedy trial rights and plea offers is not necessarily precluded by a prior motion to wit…
[2] A defendant's claim that they would have accepted a plea offer but for counsel's misadvice is a viable claim for ineffective assistance of counsel if true.
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“Haynes asserts that but for the misadvice of counsel, he would have accepted the State's plea offer of four years. If true, this is a viable claim for ineffective assistance of counsel.”
Establishes the legal standard for ineffective assistance claims based on erroneous plea advice
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHaynes was offered a plea deal by the State for four years imprisonment. His trial counsel advised him to reject the plea based on erroneous legal adv…
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, Cal Haynes, appeals a trial court order summarily denying all three grounds of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm the trial court’s summary denial of grounds one and three without further discussion, but reverse and remand the trial court’s summary denial of ground two.
In ground two, Haynes argued ineffective assistance of trial counsel arising from counsel advising him to reject a plea offer by the State of four years imprisonment, based on erroneous advice of counsel that the victim’s failure to appear for trial within the time for speedy trial could result in dismissal of the prosecution against him for aggravated battery. Haynes rejected the plea offer. He later entered into an open, no contest plea and was sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment. The trial court summarily rejected this claim as successive because Haynes previously filed a *727motion to withdraw his plea pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170 in which he alleged that he was misled as to the possible sentence he would receive, and coerced into entering the open plea.
The trial court held an evidentiary hearing on the rule 3.170 motion, at which Haynes testified that his counsel advised him to enter the open plea after the victim appeared for trial and that he did not want to do that. He said he was surprised that the victim appeared for trial. The trial court denied relief after that hearing, and this Court affirmed per curiam in Haynes v. State, 974 So.2d 1079 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). The rule 3.170 motion did not contain the same claim Haynes presented in ground two of his rule 3.850 motion. The denial of Haynes’s rule 3.170 motion, and this Court’s affirmance of that denial, does not preclude relief now. See generally Gadson v. State, 807 So.2d 817 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).
Haynes asserts that but for the misad-vice of counsel, he would have accepted the State’s plea offer of four years. If true, this is a viable claim for ineffective assistance of counsel. See Hoswell v. State, 948 So.2d 820, 821 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (citing Cottle v. State, 733 So.2d 963 (Fla.1999)). Haynes’s claim is not refuted by the record before this Court.
Therefore, we reverse and remand the trial court’s summary denial of ground two for either an evidentiary hearing or record attachments that refute the claim.
Reversed and Remanded.
HAZOURI, MAY and CIKLIN, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Parlavecchio v. State, 67 So. 3d 1107 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…ant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm the trial court’s order on all issues except the denial of the claims within Points One and Two concerning Parlavecchio’s rejection of a favorable plea offer. See generally, Haynes v. State, 24 So. 3d 726 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). We reverse and remand for the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing to address solely those claims. Affirmed in part, Reversed in part and Remanded. POLEN, TAYLOR and HAZOURI, JJ, concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Cottle v. State, 733 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 1999)
- Loic Gadson v. State, 807 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- Hoswell v. State, 948 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)