LAWRENCE ENO, 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.
Lawrence Eno appealed the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 postconviction motion raising six claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The court reversed the summary denial as to three claims because they were not conclusively refuted by the record attachments, including a claim that trial counsel misadvised him about the applicable minimum mandatory sentence.
The court reversed the summary denial of three claims: (1) the portion of the first claim alleging counsel misadvised about the applicable minimum mandatory sentence, which was not refuted by attachments; (2) the second claim regarding failure to finalize a more favorable earlier plea offer; and (3) the third claim regarding failure to finalize a substantial assistance agreement. The court remanded for the trial court to either supplement its denial with refuting attachments or grant a hearing.
[1] A trial court's summary denial of a motion for postconviction relief must be reversed if the motion raises claims that are not conclusively refuted by the record attachme…
[2] Ineffective assistance of counsel claims premised on counsel's failure to advise a defendant of a minimum mandatory sentence are refuted by the record if the defendant ac…
Previewing 2 of 6 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 raised six claims, three of which are not conclusively refuted by the record attachments to the trial court's order, requiring a reversal as to the denial of those claims”
Establishes the standard that summary denial is improper when claims are not conclusively refuted by attachments
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEno entered an open plea resolving charges from three felony cases with an agreed ten-year sentencing cap. Defense counsel stated the plea included a …
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 Would-Have-Been-Imposed Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
We recall our prior per curiam decision and issue the following opinion on rehearing.
Lawrence Eno appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The motion raised six claims, three of which are not conclusively refuted by the record attachments to the trial court’s order, requiring a reversal as to the denial of those claims. See, e.g., McLin v. State, 827 So.2d 948, 954 (Fla.2002).
In his first claim, Eno alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him that his open plea could result in a seven-year minimum mandatory sentence and failing to point out to the court that the information does not support a seven-year minimum mandatory. The trial court correctly concluded that the first portion of this claim is conclusively refuted by the record. At the plea proceeding, defense counsel expressly stated that the plea arrangement resolved charges from three felony cases with an agreed overall sentencing cap of ten years in state prison, and a seven-year minimum mandatory sentence applicable to the charge of trafficking in methamphetamine. Then, in response to the trial court’s questioning, Eno acknowledged under oath his understanding that one of the charges to which he was entering a plea carried a seven-year minimum mandatory sentence — and that this would be the lowest sentence that he could receive upon entering his pleas.
On rehearing, however, Eno correctly points out that nothing attached to the trial court’s order refutes his claim that the information charged him with trafficking in fourteen grams of methamphetamine — which only carries a three-year minimum mandatory sentence1 — and that his trial lawyer was ineffective for misadvising Eno and the court that a seven-year minimum mandatory sentence applied when only a three-year minimum mandatory sentence applied. Accordingly, we reverse the summary denial of that portion of Eno’s first claim not refuted by the attachments to the trial court’s order, and remand with instructions that the trial court either supplement its denial with attachments that do refute this allegation, or grant Eno a hearing on this claim. We also agree with Eno that the record attachments do not refute his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel premised upon counsel’s failure to finalize an earlier, more favorable plea offer, which Eno told his *786lawyer he wanted to accept (Enos claim two) and failure to finalize a substantial assistance agreement that would have resulted in a further reduction of Eno’s sentence, which he also communicated to his lawyer that he wanted to enter (Eno’s claim three). In all other respects, the trial court’s order is affirmed.2
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
ORFINGER and LAWSON, JJ., concur.
GRIFFIN, J., concurs in result only.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- McLIN v. State, 827 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 2002)
- State v. Anderson, 905 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2005)