JOHN HAYES, 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.
John Hayes appeals the denial of his postconviction motion for ineffective assistance of counsel under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The appellate court affirmed the denial of one ground but reversed and remanded the denial of Hayes' claim that his attorney misinformed him about an entrapment defense, finding that general acknowledgments at the plea colloquy did not conclusively refute the specific allegation of ineffective assistance.
The court reversed the summary denial of ground one, holding that general acknowledgments at the plea colloquy regarding satisfaction with counsel's services do not conclusively refute a specific claim of ineffective assistance for failure to discuss or pursue a particular defense such as entrapment. The court remanded for the postconviction court to conduct an evidentiary hearing or, if summarily denying the claim, to attach record portions that conclusively refute the allegation.
[1] A defendant's general acknowledgments during a plea colloquy do not conclusively refute a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to pursue a specific defe…
[2] A plea colloquy does not refute a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel if the specific issue forming the basis of the claim was not discussed during the plea.
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“a generalized discussion of the motions or defenses that were being waived did not preclude a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to move to suppress evidence”
Establishes that general acknowledgments at plea colloquy do not conclusively refute specific ineffective assistance claims
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 2010, John Hayes pleaded guilty to delivery of cocaine and possession of cocaine and was sentenced to forty-eight months in prison. Hayes subsequen…
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 Conclusively Refute cases and more on FLexlaw
In 2010, John Hayes pleaded guilty to delivery of cocaine and possession of cocaine and was sentenced to forty-eight months in prison. He thereafter filed a motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. He now appeals the summary denial of that motion. We affirm the denial of ground two of Hayes’ motion without corn*641ment. We reverse the denial of ground one and remand for further proceedings.
In ground one, Hayes claimed that his attorney was ineffective for misinforming him about the availability of an entrapment defense and for failing to pursue that defense. He alleged that but for counsel’s omission, he would not have pleaded and would have gone to trial. The postconviction court found that ground one was conclusively refuted by Hayes’ plea colloquy.
The transcript of the plea colloquy reflects that when asked by the trial court if he was satisfied with his attorney’s services, Hayes answered “yes.” Hayes also answered “no” when asked if there were any other witnesses he wanted counsel to contact or any discovery or investigation he wanted counsel to conduct prior to entering the plea. But acknowledgements and answers of that general nature did not conclusively refute Hayes’ allegation of ineffective assistance based on his counsel’s failure to pursue a specific defense. See Zanchez v. State, 84 So.3d 466, 468 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (holding that “a generalized discussion of the motions or defenses that were being waived” did not preclude a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to move to suppress evidence); Nelson v. State, 996 So.2d 950, 952 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (holding that the defendant’s general acknowledgments at the plea colloquy did not establish that his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to move to suppress statements was an attempt to go behind the plea). The trial court did not ask Hayes specifically whether his attorney had discussed entrapment as a defense, and therefore his postconviction claim was not refuted by the transcript of the plea colloquy. See Jones v. State, 846 So.2d 1224, 1226 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (“Because the matter at issue was not discussed when the plea was taken, the plea colloquy does not refute the claim.... ”).
Accordingly, we reverse the denial of ground one and remand to the postconviction court to revisit it. We encourage the court to expedite its proceeding on remand, as Hayes’ term of imprisonment may soon expire. Should the postconviction court again determine that it should summarily deny this claim, it shall attach those portions of the trial court record that conclusively refute the allegation. Otherwise, the court shall conduct an evidentia-ry hearing.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
CRENSHAW and SLEET, JJ, Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fernandez v. State, 135 So. 3d 446 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…to withdraw his plea. This was error. Fernandez’s answers to those general questions did not conclusively refute his later claim that he was unaware of the possibility of asserting the afterthought defense when he pleaded guilty. See Hayes v. State, 120 So. 3d 640, 641 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (holding that “acknowledge-ments and answers of [a] general nature did not conclusively refute [the defendant’s] allegation of ineffective assistance based on his counsel’s failure to pursue a specific defense”). The trial co…
-
Prestano v. State, 210 So. 3d 772 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…al court relied on Prestano’s general waiver of all defenses during his plea colloquy. A general waiver of defenses, however, does not conclusively show that Prestano was not misadvised as to the legal sufficiency of his defense. See Hayes v. State, 120 So. 3d 640, 640-41 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). Accordingly, we remand for the trial court to either attach portions of the record conclusively refuting this allegation or to conduct an evidentiary hearing on ground two. We find no merit in Prestano’s remaining claims…
-
Rivero v. State, 121 So. 3d 1175 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)…ing process, see Cartwright v. State, 112 So. 3d 582 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018), this is emphatically not the case when, as here, claims of specific instances of attorney incapacity or ineffectiveness are alleged and demonstrated below. See Hayes v. State, 120 So. 3d 640 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (holding that general acknowl-edgements of satisfaction with counsel do not conclusively refute claims of ineffective assistance of counsel based on a failure to pursue specific defense); Jones v. State, 846 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 2d D…
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
- Arlis R. Jones v. State, 846 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Davis v. State, 996 So. 2d 950 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)
- Zanchez v. State, 84 So. 3d 466 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)