LARRY BOYERS, 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.
Larry Boyers appealed the summary denial of his post-conviction motion claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for advising him to reject a favorable plea offer. The court reversed in part, finding his claim cognizable but facially insufficient because he failed to allege specific deficiencies in counsel's performance, and remanded for him to file an amended claim.
The court held that allegations of ineffective assistance based on counsel advising rejection of a plea offer are cognizable where the trial result is less favorable and the defendant would have accepted the plea if properly advised. However, Boyers' claim was facially insufficient because he failed to allege specific deficiencies in counsel's performance, such as that counsel's trial assessment was unreasonable or that counsel failed to investigate.
[1] An allegation that counsel was ineffective in advising a defendant to reject a plea offer, premised on assurances of a more favorable trial outcome, can form the basis of…
[2] A postconviction claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for advising a defendant to reject a plea offer is facially insufficient if it fails to allege a specific defi…
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“An allegation that counsel was ineffective in advising a defendant to reject a plea offer premised on assurances that a trial would produce a more favorable result can be the basis of a cognizable rule 3.850 claim where the result is ultimately less favorable and the defendant alleges that he would have accepted the plea had he been properly advised.”
Establishes that ineffective assistance claims based on plea advice are cognizable under Florida law when the trial outcome is worse than the offered plea.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBoyers was convicted after jury trial of attempted second-degree murder of a law enforcement officer with a firearm and sentenced to a 20-year mandato…
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 Facially Insufficient Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
Larry Boyers challenges the order of the postconviction court summarily denying his motion filed in accordance with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We reverse the order to the extent that it denied the claim raised in ground one wherein Mr. Boyers alleged that counsel was ineffective for advising him to reject a favorable plea offer. We affirm the order without comment to the extent that it denied the remaining claims alleged in the motion.
Mr. Boyers was convicted after jury trial of attempted second-degree murder of a law enforcement officer with a firearm and was sentenced to a twenty-year mandatory minimum prison sentence under section 775.087(2)(a)(2), Florida Statutes (2006). The transcript of a pretrial hearing that was attached to the postconviction court’s order establishes that the State offered to allow Mr. Boyers to plead to the lesser-included offense of aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer with the stipulation that he be sentenced to a ten-year mandatory minimum prison term under section 775.087(2)(a)(l). The trial court advised Mr. Boyers that it was his last opportunity to accept the State’s offer. Mr. Boyers alleged that he rejected the plea based on counsel’s assurance that if he proceeded to trial, Mr. Boyers would ultimately obtain a lesser sentence than the ten-year mandatory minimum prison sentence offered by the State, but that he in fact received a greater sentence following his conviction at trial. Mr. Boyers alleged further that but for counsel’s deficient performance, he would have accepted the plea offer.1
An allegation that counsel was ineffective in advising a defendant to reject a plea offer premised on assurances that a *1232trial would produce a more favorable result can be the basis of a cognizable rule 3.850 claim where the result is ultimately less favorable and the defendant alleges that he would have accepted the plea had he been properly advised. Morgan v. State, 991 So.2d 835, 841 (Fla.2008); Wright v. State, — So.3d- (Fla. 2d DCA 2012). However, Mr. Boyers’ claim is facially insufficient because he failed to allege a specific deficiency on the part of counsel, such as an assertion that counsel’s assessment of the chances of success at trial was unreasonable under the facts and circumstances of the case or .that counsel had not investigated or was otherwise unfamiliar with the case.2 See Morgan, 991 So.2d at 841; Wright, — So.3d-.
Because Mr. Boyers presented a cognizable but facially insufficient claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel’s advice to reject a plea offer, we reverse the postconviction court’s order to the extent that it denied the claim presented in ground one of the motion. On remand, the postconviction court shall strike this claim with leave to amend to file a facially sufficient claim within a reasonable time. See Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 754, 761 (Fla.2007). In all other respects, we affirm the postconviction court’s order.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
KHOUZAM and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lawrenson v. State, 143 So. 3d 1048 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…l was unreasonable under the facts and circumstances of this case or that counsel had not investigated or otherwise was not familiar with the case.”), receded from on other grounds by Alcorn v. State, 121 So. 3d 419, 433 (Fla.2013); Boyers v. State, 104 So. 3d 1230, 1231 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012). However, the State also argued that Lawrenson was not entitled to an opportunity to amend. We disagree. A claim that counsel was ineffective for advising a defendant to reject a plea offer is cognizable in a motion for pos…
-
Rish v. State, 268 So. 3d 233 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019)
-
Hogan v. State, 173 So. 3d 903 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)…unsel. Because the defendant’s second claim was facially insufficient, the trial court should have struck claim two and provided the defendant with leave to amend the claim in a reasonable time period. See Wright, 113 So. 3d at 45; Boyers v. State, 104 So. 3d 1230, 1232 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012). Accordingly, we affirm as to claims one and three, but reverse as to claim two, and remand for the trial court to strike claim two and give the defendant the opportunity to amend his motion. AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 2007)
- Morgan v. State, 991 So. 2d 835 (Fla. 2008)