RONALD BLAKE HATTON, 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.
Ronald Hatton appeals the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 postconviction motion challenging his conviction for sexual activity by a person in familial authority and lewd and lascivious exhibition. The appellate court affirms most claims but reverses the denial of Hatton's ineffective assistance of counsel claim regarding his attorney's failure to advise him that he could receive a harsher sentence upon retrial.
Hatton adequately alleged prejudice by demonstrating he was exposed to a harsher sentence, did not know he could receive one, and the trial court actually imposed harsher consecutive sentences. The decision whether to seek a new trial was ultimately Hatton's to make, and the postconviction court erred in denying relief on this claim without considering whether Hatton would have declined the new trial had he been properly informed.
[1] A defendant alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to advise of potential harsher sentence on retrial must establish prejudice by showing they were unawar…
[2] A defendant's decision to seek a new trial is a personal one, irrespective of whether the underlying error was fundamental.
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“Hatton has adequately alleged prejudice by asserting that he was exposed to a harsher sentence, that he did not know he could get a harsher sentence, and that the trial court actually imposed a harsher sentence than the one originally imposed.”
Establishes that the defendant demonstrated sufficient prejudice to succeed on an ineffective assistance claim where counsel failed to warn of potential harsher sentencing consequences.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn January 2005, a Pinellas County jury convicted Hatton of sexual activity by a person in familial authority and lewd and lascivious exhibition, with…
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 Fundamental Error cases and more on FLexlaw
Ronald Hatton seeks review of the order summarily denying his motion for postcon-viction relief which was filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. *840We affirm the summary denial of all claims but claim two.
In January 2005, a Pinellas County jury found Hatton guilty of sexual activity by a person in familial authority and lewd and lascivious exhibition. The trial court sentenced Hatton to thirty years in prison for the first charge concurrent with a fifteen-year term on the second charge. The court subsequently granted Hatton a new trial based on allegations of juror misconduct. Hatton was retried in front of a successor judge, found guilty, and sentenced to the same prison terms, but they were to be served consecutively. For reasons not reflected in the record, the successor judge subsequently vacated that judgment and sentence. In November 2005, the successor judge resentenced Hatton to thirty years in prison for the first charge and a consecutive fifteen years for the second charge. This court affirmed Hatton’s judgment and sentence on direct appeal. See Hatton v. State, 970 So.2d 831 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (table).
In February 2009, Hatton filed his rule 3.850 motion, which he later amended. In pertinent part, Hatton asserted that counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him that he could receive a harsher sentence on retrial. He contended that he would not have agreed to the filing of a motion for new trial if counsel had informed him of his potential sentence. In denying relief on this claim, the postconviction court concluded that Hatton had not established prejudice because the determination of the sentence on retrial was within the trial court’s discretion. The court also noted that defense counsel would have been ineffective for failing to make the motion for new trial because it was granted based on fundamental error.
We cannot agree with the postconviction court’s ruling. Hatton has adequately alleged prejudice by asserting that he was exposed to a harsher sentence, that he did not know he could get a harsher sentence, and that the trial court actually imposed a harsher sentence than the one originally imposed. And it was ultimately Hatton’s decision whether to seek a new trial, regardless of whether the error was fundamental. While it seems questionable that Hatton would not have pursued a new trial, the record does not refute his claim that he would have declined that opportunity if he knew he would be exposed to a harsher sentence. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for reconsideration.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
KELLY and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Hatton, 143 So. 3d 1006 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…. Mr. Hatton appealed, and this court affirmed the postconviction court’s denial of all of the claims except claim two. This court reversed the postconviction court’s order with regard to that claim and remanded for reconsideration. Hatton v. State, 90 So. 3d 839, 840 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012). In claim two, Mr. Hatton “asserted that counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him that he could receive a harsher sentence on retrial” and “contended that he would not have agreed to the filing of a motion for new tr…