THERON SPEIGHTS, 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.
Trial court properly denied postconviction relief where defendant claimed ineffective assistance based on undisclosed plea offer, because the alleged offer letter was dated after trial occurred.
A trial court properly denies postconviction relief under Rule 3.850 when the alleged newly discovered plea offer is dated after the trial took place.
Theron Speights was tried on trafficking in cocaine charges in August 2002. He later filed a postconviction motion claiming his attorney failed to inf…
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 Negotiations cases and more on FLexlaw
Theron Speights appeals the trial court’s order that summarily denied his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Mr. Speights maintains the trial court should have conducted an evidentiary hearing on his claim that he was entitled to relief because he had recently discovered that his lawyer had received an acceptable plea offer from the State prior to trial and did not inform him of the offer. He relies on handwritten notes his lawyer allegedly wrote prior to trial on a letter that the assistant state attorney mailed to the lawyer. He attached a copy of the letter with the handwritten notes to his motion.
Mr. Speights accurately alleges that he proceeded to trial on a charge of trafficking in cocaine in August 2002. The letter on which his attorney allegedly wrote notes about the plea negotiations is dated October 31, 2002, and contains a date stamp indicating receipt by his lawyer on November 4, 2002. Mr. Speights had other felony charges that were resolved after the trial in August 2002, and it is possible that his attorney wrote the notes but they relate to his other charges. Whatever the actual facts, this “newly discovered evidence” cannot possibly relate to plea negotiations in August 2002, and the trial court properly denied this claim.
Affirmed.
CRENSHAW and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Savage v. State, 120 So. 3d 619 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)
-
Zavon DeShawn Taylor v. State, 185 So. 3d 1281 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)…probation. The circuit court improperly imposed a condition requiring Taylor to “obtain” a GED or high school [*1282] diploma. See Rodriguez v. State, 768 So. 2d 1234, 1236 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000), overruled on other grounds as stated in Mier v. State, 58 So. 3d 319, 321 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). We remand for the court to modify this condition to conform to the requirements of section 948.037(1), Florida Statutes (2012), which would require Taylor to make a “good faith effort” to achieve such.skills or diploma. We…
-
Malone v. State, 146 So. 3d 155 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…The written order of probation revocation stated that Malone was in violation of conditions 2, 3, 22, and 73. This appeal ensued. “To justify revocation, a violation of a condition of probation must be both willful and substantial.” Mier v. State, 58 So. 3d 319, 321 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). “This court reviews the trial court’s decision to revoke probation for an abuse of discretion.” Hostetter v. State, 82 So. 3d 1217, 1219 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). When some grounds of probation violation are upheld and others ar…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence