JAMES E. HENRY, 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.
Henry appealed the denial of his Rule 3.850 postconviction motion, challenging ineffective assistance of counsel regarding a rejected plea. The court affirmed the denial of two grounds but reversed and remanded the claim that counsel misadvised him about the prison releasee reoffender statute's applicability and consequences, finding it facially sufficient to warrant an evidentiary hearing.
The court reversed the denial of ground two and remanded for an evidentiary hearing. The claim was facially sufficient under the standard established in Roundtree v. State and Lafler v. Cooper, as Henry alleged that counsel failed to advise him of enhanced sentencing under the PRR statute, that he would have accepted the plea had he received proper advice, and that acceptance would have resulted in a lesser sentence.
[1] A defendant may claim ineffective assistance of counsel when counsel's misadvice leads to the rejection of a plea offer.
[2] To establish prejudice in a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel regarding a rejected plea, a defendant must show a reasonable probability that they would have acce…
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“defendant can claim ineffective assistance of counsel in the context of a rejected plea and that to establish the prejudice prong of the Strickland test, the defendant must show that but for the ineffective advice of counsel there is a reasonable probability that the defendant would have accepted the plea and the prosecution would not have withdrawn it in light of intervening circumstances”
Establishes the legal standard for ineffective assistance of counsel claims related to rejected pleas
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHenry filed a postconviction motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 raising three grounds for relief. Ground two alleged that his couns…
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 Prison Releasee Reoffender Act cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant challenges the 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 of the motion without further discussion. However, we reverse and remand the denial of ground two, the appellant’s claim that he rejected a plea based on the misadvice of counsel as to the applicability and consequences of the prison releasee reoffender statute, for an evidentiary hearing. See Cottle v. State, 733 So.2d 963 (Fla.1999); Roundtree v. State, 884 So.2d 322 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (holding that claim of ineffective assistance of counsel regarding rejected plea was facially sufficient where defendant alleged counsel failed to advise him that he faced enhanced sentence as a PRR, that he would have accepted plea, and that acceptance of offer would have resulted in lesser sentence); see also Lafler v. Cooper, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 1376, 182 L.Ed.2d 398 (U.S.2012) (holding that defendant can claim ineffective assistance of counsel in the context of a rejected plea and that to establish the prejudice prong of the Strickland test, the defendant must show that but for the ineffective advice of counsel there is a reasonable probability that the defendant would have accepted the plea and the prosecution would not have withdrawn it in light of intervening circumstances, and also that the court would have accepted its terms, and that the conviction or sentence, or both, under the offer’s terms would have been less severe than under the judgment and sentence that in fact were imposed).
*935AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED and REMANDED in part.
WOLF, ROWE, and SWANSON, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (U.S. 2012)
- Cottle v. State, 733 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 1999)
- Roundtree v. State, 884 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)