D'ANDRE PLUMMER, 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.
D'Andre Plummer appeals the denial of his rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief following conviction for aggravated battery on a pregnant victim and sentencing as a Prison Release Reoffender to 15 years. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of all three grounds for relief, finding no ineffective assistance of counsel claims or sentencing irregularities.
The trial court properly denied all grounds for postconviction relief. Counsel was not ineffective for failing to call the victim as a witness or for the plea offer claim, as the evidence conclusively showed the seven-year offer was extensively discussed for weeks and continued until minutes before verdict, and the trial judge informed Plummer of the PRR consequences at trial.
[1] A defendant is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a postconviction claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to call a witness if the record conclusiv…
[2] A mandatory minimum sentence imposed under the Prison Release Reoffender Act must comport with the sentence orally pronounced by the court.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“The testimony clearly refuted Appellant's claim that counsel failed to convey the State's plea offer of seven years [...] All parties agreed that the seven-year plea offer was discussed for weeks prior to trial, that Appellant counter-offered seeking a six-year agreement, and that the plea offer continued to be discussed among all concerned, including the court, until minutes before the jury returned its verdict.”
Establishes the factual basis for rejecting the ineffective assistance claim regarding the plea offer.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlummer was convicted by jury trial of aggravated battery on a pregnant victim and sentenced as a Prison Release Reoffender to 15 years incarceration.…
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 Motion For Postconviction Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
D’Andre Plummer appeals the denial of his motion for postconviction relief under rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Appellant was convicted, after jury trial, of aggravated battery on a pregnant victim, and sentenced as a Prison Release Reoffender (“PRR”) to 15 years incarceration. See § 775.082(9)(b), Fla. Stat. The judgment and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. Plummer v. State, 43 So.3d 697 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).
Appellant asserted in his motion for postconviction relief that: 1) defense counsel was ineffective for failure to call a requested witness (the victim) to testify at the sentencing hearing; 2) the sentence was illegal because the mandatory term of the PRR sentence did not comport with the sentence orally pronounced; and 3) defense counsel was ineffective for failing to convey a plea offer to Appellant.
*465The trial court denied grounds one and two without an evidentiary hearing and attached portions of the record conclusively showing that Appellant was entitled to no relief. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(d); Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D). Having reviewed the order and attachments, we find that the trial court committed no error in denying these grounds and properly supported its ruling with portions of the record of the trial proceedings.
On ground three, the trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing which included testimony by defense counsel and by Appellant. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.171(c)(2)(A). The testimony clearly refuted Appellant’s claim that counsel failed to convey the State’s plea offer of seven years. All parties agreed that the seven-year plea offer was discussed for weeks prior to trial, that Appellant counter-offered seeking a six-year agreement, and that the plea offer continued to be discussed among all concerned, including the court, until minutes before the jury returned its verdict. Even if Appellant’s assertion of counsel’s ineffectiveness is interpreted as a claim that counsel violated rule 3.171(c)(2)(B), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, by insufficiently advising Appellant of the particulars of the plea, in contrast to the consequences of rejecting the plea and accepting the jury’s verdict, the testimony during the evidentiary hearing and the transcript of the trial proceedings, where the judge clearly informed Appellant of the PRR sentence if the jury found him guilty, refuted this claim as well.
In addition to the trial court’s denial of his postconviction motion, Appellant challenges on appeal the trial court’s denial of his motion for appointment of counsel to represent him at the evidentiary hearing. Appellant has failed to show that the trial court abused its discretion by denying appointed counsel in this case. Wheeler v. State, 807 So.2d 94 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).
For all the foregoing reasons, the trial court’s orders are AFFIRMED.
BENTON, C.J. and MAKAR, J., concur.