FERNANDO SOTO, 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.
Fernando Soto appeals a summary denial of his Rule 3.850 postconviction motion. The court affirms the denial of most claims but reverses and remands regarding his allegation that trial counsel coerced him to plead by threatening to withdraw, finding the transcript pages attached to the summary denial did not conclusively refute this claim.
The court affirmed the denial of postconviction relief on most claims but reversed and remanded the denial of relief on the claim that counsel coerced Soto into pleading by threatening withdrawal, finding the transcript pages attached to the summary order did not conclusively refute Soto's allegations and requiring an evidentiary hearing.
[1] A postconviction court must hold an evidentiary hearing on a claim that trial counsel coerced a guilty plea by threatening to withdraw if the defendant chose to go to tri…
[2] A postconviction court's summary denial of a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is improper if the attached record does not conclusively refute the defendant's al…
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“We conclude that the attached pages of the change of plea hearing do not conclusively refute Mr. Soto's allegations that he was coerced into pleading by his counsel's alleged threats.”
Establishes the standard for summary denial in postconviction cases—materials must conclusively refute allegations, and if not, an evidentiary hearing is required.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSoto, 19 years old and on probation for misdemeanor battery and felony cocaine possession, violated probation by committing attempted armed robbery wi…
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 Minimum Mandatory Term cases and more on FLexlaw
Fernando Soto appeals the order summarily denying his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. He asserted three claims: the first two claimed ineffective assistance of counsel, but the third was not cognizable on a postconviction motion. We affirm without comment the denial of postconviction relief except in one respect. We reverse that part of the final order that denied relief on related claims A(4) and B, that counsel was ineffective for *565coercing him to plead by threatening to withdraw as counsel.
Nineteen-year-old Mr. Soto was on probation for misdemeanor battery and felony possession of cocaine when he violated probation by committing an attempted robbery with a firearm. He entered an open plea to the new charge and the resulting violation of probation. Although he qualified for youthful offender sentencing, the trial court declined to sentence him as a youthful offender. Instead, the trial court sentenced him to ten years’ incarceration with a minimum mandatory term of ten years for use of the firearm for the attempted armed robbery, forty-six months’ concurrent incarceration for the felony possession of cocaine, and time served for the misdemeanor battery. He did not appeal these judgments and sentences but did file a timely motion for postconviction relief.
In related claims A(4) and B, Mr. Soto alleged that his trial counsel had pressured him into pleading by saying that if he chose to go to trial, counsel would withdraw from his case, the trial court would not appoint him new counsel, and he would have to defend himself pro se at trial. After receiving a State response to this claim, the postconviction court summarily denied it and attached certain pages of the transcript of the change of plea hearing to ground the denial. We conclude that the attached pages of the change of plea hearing do not conclusively refute Mr. Soto’s allegations that he was coerced into pleading by his counsel’s alleged threats.
Consequently, we affirm those parts of the summary denial of postconviction relief not related to the claim of counsel’s alleged threat to withdraw. We reverse the remaining portion and remand to the post-conviction court to hold an evidentiary hearing on the claim that Mr. Soto’s trial counsel threatened to withdraw from representing him if he chose to go to trial rather than plead to the charges.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
LaROSE and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.