JERMAINE MARLON DOBIE, 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.
Jermaine Dobie appeals the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 postconviction motion claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. The appellate court affirmed most grounds but reversed and remanded one ground regarding counsel's alleged misadvice about the elements of sexual battery required for conviction.
The court affirmed the denial of most grounds but reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing or review of records that could conclusively refute the claim that counsel was ineffective for providing incorrect legal advice about sexual battery elements. The court held that Dobie's awareness of the charges does not conclusively refute his separate claim that his attorney made an incorrect legal statement about proof requirements.
[1] A motion for postconviction relief must be reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing or attachment of records conclusively refuting the claim when appealed from a…
[2] Ineffective assistance of counsel claims based on incorrect legal advice regarding the elements of a crime may warrant postconviction relief.
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“On appeal from a summary denial of a facially sufficient motion, this court must reverse unless the postconviction record conclusively shows that the appellant is entitled to no relief.”
Establishes the standard of review for postconviction relief appeals under Rule 9.141(b)(2)
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBefore trial, Dobie received a plea offer. His trial attorney allegedly advised him that the State had to establish actual penetration to prove sexual…
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 Sexual Battery Elements cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm the denial of grounds one, and three through nine of Appellant’s motion; however, we reverse and remand for the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing or to attach records conclusively refuting Appellant’s claim that trial counsel was ineffective for allegedly giving incorrect legal advice regarding the elements of sexual battery. On appeal from a summary denial of a facially sufficient motion, this court must reverse unless the postconviction record conclusively shows that the appellant is entitled to no relief. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2).
Appellant argued that prior to rejecting a plea offer, his attorney advised that the State had to establish actual penetration in order to prove sexual battery. See § 794.011(l)(h), Fla. Stat. (defining sexual battery as “oral anal, or vaginal .penetration, or union with, the sexual organ of another ... ”). Appellant alleged he would have accepted the offer had he known that proving penetration was not required for a conviction. The State responded that Appellant could not reasonably rely upon his counsel’s alleged misadviee because he was made aware of the charges both during jury selection and during the charging conference after the evidence was presented, yet Appellant failed to raise an objection. The postconviction court adopted the State’s response to Appellant’s motion and incorporated it by reference. Appellant’s argument, however, is not that he was unaware of the charges, but that his attorney made an incorrect statement regarding the proof required to sustain the charges. Although a transcript of the plea hearing is included in the record, it does not conclusively refute Appellant’s claim.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
WOLF, THOMAS, and CLARK, JJ., concur.