MAKENDY ALFRED, 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.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's summary denial of Alfred's postconviction relief motion under Florida Rule 3.850, rejecting claims that his guilty plea was involuntary due to ineffective assistance of counsel and misunderstanding of his potential sentence. The court held that these issues were procedurally barred because they had been raised and rejected on direct appeal.
The court affirmed the trial court's summary denial. Issues that could have been or were raised and rejected on direct appeal cannot be relitigated in a Rule 3.850 motion. Additionally, a defendant cannot disavow sworn answers given during a plea colloquy by claiming he lied at counsel's direction, and therefore such claims do not warrant an evidentiary hearing.
[1] A motion for postconviction relief cannot be used to relitigate issues that were raised and rejected on direct appeal.
[2] A defendant is bound by sworn answers given during a plea colloquy and cannot later claim to have lied under oath at counsel's direction.
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“A Rule 8.850 motion cannot be used to litigate issues that could have been or were raised and rejected on direct appeal.”
Establishes the procedural bar preventing relitigation of issues already decided on direct appeal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAlfred entered a guilty plea and was sentenced. On direct appeal, he claimed his counsel misadvised him about the potential sentence and that his plea…
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 Rule 3.850 Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
We affirm the trial court’s order summarily denying appellant’s Rule 3.850 motion and amended motion for postconviction relief.
Appellant’s motion and amended motion raised procedurally-barred claims that his plea was involuntary due to ineffective assistance of counsel and appellant’s alleged misunderstanding as to the possible sentence. This court rejected these claims on direct appeal. Alfred v. State, 998 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (holding that plea colloquy conclusively showed that appellant was not entitled to relief on his claim that counsel misadvised him as to the potential sentence and holding that any deficiency of trial counsel did not prejudice appellant). A Rule 8.850 motion cannot be used to litigate issues that could have been or were raised and rejected on direct appeal. Teffeteller v. Dugger, 734 So.2d 1009, 1016 (Fla.1999); see also Brown v. State, 596 So.2d 1026, 1028 (Fla.1992) (“Raising a different argument in a rule 3.850 motion to relitigate an issue raised and rejected on direct appeal is inappropriate.”).
Further, as we already held in the direct appeal, appellant’s allegation that he believed his sentence would be capped at fifteen years is thoroughly refuted by the record. Appellant’s new allegation, which he raised for the first time in his amended posteonviction motion — that counsel coached him to lie during the plea colloquy — does not require an evidentiary hearing. A defendant is bound by his sworn answers during a plea colloquy and cannot later disavow those answers by asserting that he lied during the colloquy at counsel’s direction. Iacono v. State, 930 So.2d 829, 831 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); see also Polk v. State, 56 So.3d 804, 808 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (agreeing that “a defendant should be estopped to receive an evidentia-ry hearing on a postconviction claim when the basis of the claim is that he lied under oath at the relevant hearing”).
Affirmed.
TAYLOR and CONNER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wilber Rodriguez v. State, 223 So. 3d 1095 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…ith counsel’s services and advice. The defendant also confirmed that there were no other witnesses, documents, or evidence he wanted his counsel to, investigate on his behalf. The defendant is, therefore, bound by these answers. See Alfred v. State, 71 So. 3d 138, 139 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (holding that Alfred’s claim that counsel coached him to lie during the plea colloquy did not require an évidentiary hearing); Smith v. State, 41 So. 3d 1037 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (holding that “[wjhere a defendant enters a pl…
-
Rivero v. State, 121 So. 3d 1175 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)…ned or coerced him into entering a plea, that no one had promised him anything, and that no one had misadvised him or made any misrepresentations to him. Thus the record refutes Appellant’s claim that his plea was coerced. See also Alfred v. State, 71 So. 3d 138, 139 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (“A defendant is bound by his sworn answers during a plea colloquy and cannot later disavow those answers by asserting that he lied during the colloquy at counsel’s direction.”); Davis v. State, 938 So. 2d 555, 557 (Fla. 1st…
-
Wisnia Etienne v. State, 171 So. 3d 183 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…ttorney’s advice in the face of the trial court’s specific explanation that it could sentence him above the state’s plea offer of fifteen years and appellant’s agreement that no one had advised him of what his sentence would be. See Alfred v. State, 71 So. 3d 138, 139 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011); Alfred v. State, 998 So. 2d 1197, 1199-200 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). As to appellant’s second ground for relief, we also affirm. See United States v. Hoffman, 733 F. 2d 596 (9th Cir.1984); United States v. Mouzin, 785 F. 2d 682…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Teffeteller v. Dugger, 734 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 1999)
- Iacono v. State, 930 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- Brown v. State, 596 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 1992)
- Dorris v. State, 998 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)
- Polk v. State, 56 So. 3d 804 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)
- Makendy Alfred v. State, 998 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)