SAMUEL E. SIMMONS, 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.
Samuel Simmons appealed the denial of his Rule 3.850 motion to vacate his conviction, arguing that Lafler v. Cooper and Missouri v. Frye established new fundamental constitutional rights that should apply retroactively to his case. The court held that these cases merely refine existing ineffective assistance of counsel doctrine rather than establish new rights, and therefore the motion was properly denied as untimely.
Lafler and Frye do not establish new fundamental constitutional rights but are instead evolutionary refinements of the existing ineffective assistance of counsel doctrine established in Strickland v. Washington. Therefore, the motion was properly denied as untimely, and the trial court's order is affirmed.
[1] A motion to vacate a criminal conviction under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 must be filed within two years of the judgment and sentence becoming final, unless…
[2] An exception to the two-year filing period for a motion to vacate exists if the fundamental constitutional right asserted was not established within the period and has be…
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“Both Lafler and Frye are properly viewed as "evolutionary refinements" to well-established rules governing ineffective assistance of counsel claims in the context of convictions predicated on pleas.”
Establishes that the court views Lafler and Frye as clarifications of existing law rather than new constitutional rights.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSimmons sought to vacate a conviction that had been affirmed in 1990 in Simmons v. State, 558 So.2d 180 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). He filed a Rule 3.850 mot…
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 Constitutional Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from the denial, as untimely, of a motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Appellant, the movant below, argues that Lafler v. Cooper, — U.S.-, 132 S.Ct. 1376, 1391, 182 L.Ed.2d 398 (U.S.2012) (holding that Lafler suffered prejudice when, after following counsel’s advice to reject a plea offer and proceed to trial, he received a harsher sentence than he had been offered in exchange for a plea), and Missouri v. Frye, — U.S.-, 132 S.Ct. 1399, 1408, 182 L.Ed.2d 379 (U.S.2012) (holding that counsel has a duty to communicate to the defendant all formal plea offers from the prosecution), establish new, fundamental constitutional rights of the kind contemplated by Rule 3.850(b)(2) and apply retroactively to his case.
With (other) exceptions not pertinent here, Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 provides that motions to vacate or set aside criminal convictions shall not be filed
more than 2 years after the judgment and sentence become final unless it alleges that....
(2) the fundamental constitutional right asserted was not established within the [two-year] period provided for herein and has been held to apply retroactively, and the claim is made within 2 years of the date of the mandate of the decision announcing the retroactivity....
Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(b). Seeking to vacate the conviction affirmed in Simmons v. State, 558 So.2d 180 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), the motion in the present case was filed on April 23, 2009.
Both Lafler and Frye apply Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 690, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), which sets out the requirements for proving a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Both La-fler and Frye recognize that a defendant is entitled to effective assistance of counsel, not only at trial, but also in determining whether to plead or to go to trial. But prior cases were already clear on this point. See Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59, 106 S.Ct. 366, 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985). Florida recognized the right to effective assistance of counsel before trial in cases such as Cottle v. State, 733 So.2d 963 (Fla.1999), and Morgan v. State, 991 So.2d 835, 840 (Fla.2008) (reiterating that the Cottle decision was grounded on Strickland). Neither Lafler nor Frye amounts to any sort of “jurisprudential upheaval” in Florida.
We agree with the learned trial judge that Lafler and Frye are but a refinement of decisions already handed down, a clearer articulation of existing law that does not establish new constitutional rights: Both Lafler and Frye are properly viewed as “evolutionary refinements” to well-established rules governing ineffective assistance of counsel claims in the context of *1187convictions predicated on pleas. See Walton v. State, 77 So.3d 639, 643 (Fla.2011); State v. Barnum, 921 So.2d 513, 526 (Fla.2005); accord In re Perez, 682 F.3d 930, 932 (11th Cir.2012) (holding that Lafler and Frye merely refine Strickland and thus do not announce new rules). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order denying the appellant’s motion as untimely filed. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(b).
Affirmed.
ROBERTS and RAY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Cherryl L. Gaschler v. State, 117 So. 3d 848 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Moore v. State, 114 So. 3d 291 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013); Simmons v. State, 104 So. 3d 1185 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). TAYLOR, MAY and LEVINE, JJ., concur.…
-
Moore v. State, 114 So. 3d 291 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…32 S.Ct. 1399, 182 L.Ed.2d 379 (2012), did not create any new fundamental constitutional right, and these decisions do not provide any exception to the time limitation for seeking postconviction relief. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(b)(2); Simmons v. State, 104 So. 3d 1185 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). Affirmed. WARNER, STEVENSON and GROSS, JJ., concur.…
-
Perie v. State, 125 So. 3d 973 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…376, 182 L.Ed.2d 398 (2012), do not establish a new fundamental constitutional right as contemplated by rule 3.850(b)(2) and thus do not provide an exception to the two-year time limit for filing a timely postconviction motion. See Simmons v. State, 104 So. 3d 1185, 1186-87 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). As the First District explained in Simmons, the two decisions issued by the Supreme Court of the United States are but a refinement of decisions already handed down, a clearer articulation of existing law that does no…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (11 total)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1985)
- Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (U.S. 2012)
- Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134 (U.S. 2012)
- Cottle v. State, 733 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 1999)
- Walton v. State, 77 So. 3d 639 (Fla. 2011)
- Morgan v. State, 991 So. 2d 835 (Fla. 2008)
- State v. Barnum, 921 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 2005)
- In re Perez, 682 F.3d 930 (11th Cir. 2012)
- Simmons v. State, 558 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)