PATRICK THOMPKINS, 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.
Patrick Thompkins appealed the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 postconviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The court affirmed the denial of most claims but reversed the summary denial of his claim that counsel affirmatively misadvised him that death was the only possible sentence for first-degree murder, warranting further proceedings to determine if the plea should be withdrawn.
The court held that Thompkins' claim of affirmative misadvice regarding sentencing was legally sufficient and that the trial court's summary denial was improper because nothing in the plea colloquy actually refuted the claim. The court reversed the summary denial of this claim and remanded for further proceedings.
[1] A plea entered based on defense counsel's affirmative misadvice regarding sentencing can be grounds for withdrawal of the plea.
[2] A trial court's advice during a plea colloquy that a defendant faces a possibility of the death penalty does not automatically refute a claim that counsel affirmatively m…
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“A claim of entry of a plea based on defense counsel's affirmative misadvice about sentencing can constitute grounds for withdrawal of the plea.”
Establishes the legal standard for affirmative misadvice claims in the context of plea withdrawal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThompkins was originally charged with three counts of first-degree murder and four counts of attempted first-degree murder, all with a firearm. He ent…
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 Affirmative Misadvice Of Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, Patrick Thompkins, was originally charged with first-degree murder with a firearm in counts one, two, and three, and attempted first-degree murder with a firearm in counts four, five, six, and seven. He later entered into a negotiated plea agreement, where he pled guilty to second-degree murder with a firearm. The other counts were nolle prossed. Appellant then filed a rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief, alleging four claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, including a claim of affirmative misadvice of counsel, and a claim of illegal sentencing. We affirm the trial court’s summary denial of all claims except claim three, in which he alleged affirmative misadvice of counsel that if he were convicted on the first three counts as originally charged, the only possible sentence he could receive would be the death penalty.
Appellant alleged in his motion that but for this affirmative misadvice, he would have proceeded to trial on the charges. He also alleged that but for this misadvice, he would have rejected the plea *67offer and proceeded to trial instead. His claim is legally sufficient. See Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 106 S.Ct. 366, 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985); Grosvenor v. State, 874 So.2d 1176 (Fla.2004). A claim of entry of a plea based on defense counsel’s affirmative misadvice about sentencing can constitute grounds for -withdrawal of the plea. Nelfrard v. State, 34 So.3d 221, 222 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).
The trial court summarily denied this claim based on the plea colloquy, but we find nothing in that colloquy which actually refuted this claim. The fact that the trial court advised appellant that if convicted, he faced the possibility of the death penalty did not overcome his claim that his counsel affirmatively misadvised him that this was the only sentencing possibility if he were convicted.
Accordingly, we reverse only as to the trial court’s summary denial of appellant’s claim three, and remand for either an evi-dentiary hearing or attachment of portions of the record refuting the claim other than the portions of record already attached to the State’s response filed below and incorporated by the trial court. We would also note that if appellant is permitted to withdraw his pleas, the State may proceed to trial, with appellant facing a sentence harsher than the one he is now serving, including a potential death sentence. Guajardo v. State, 1 So.3d 406 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
TAYLOR, MAY, and LEVINE, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Liston T. Gumbs, Jr. v. State, 143 So. 3d 1160 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…the record, the court should either permit counsel to withdraw or discharge counsel and appoint conflict-free counsel to represent the defendant. Id at 287. Our conclusions in this case are consistent with our recent opinion in Thompkins v. State, 120 So. 3d 66 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). In Thompkins, the state charged the de [*1165] fendant with, among other things, three counts of first-degree murder with a firearm. The defendant later pled guilty to second-degree murder with a firearm. The defendant then file…
Authorities Cited
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1985)
- Grosvenor v. State, 874 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 2004)
- Nelfrard v. State, 34 So. 3d 221 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- Guajardo v. State, 1 So. 3d 406 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)