HENRY L. HOGAN, 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.
Henry Hogan appealed the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 motion claiming ineffective assistance of counsel based on trial counsel's misadvice regarding his maximum sentence exposure when rejecting a plea offer. The court reversed and remanded because the trial court's prejudice analysis conflicted with the recent Alcorn standard requiring consideration of whether the defendant would have accepted the corrected plea offer.
The court reversed the summary denial of the ineffective assistance claim and remanded for the trial court to either attach record portions conclusively refuting the claim under Alcorn's prejudice analysis or hold an evidentiary hearing, because the trial court's prejudice analysis was inconsistent with Alcorn's four-part prejudice test.
[1] Ineffective assistance of counsel claims based on misadvice regarding maximum sentencing require a showing of prejudice, which includes demonstrating that the defendant w…
[2] A defendant waives an appellate claim by failing to argue it in their initial brief.
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“to establish prejudice a defendant must demonstrate that he would have accepted the plea offer had counsel advised the defendant correctly, the prosecutor would not have withdrawn the plea offer, the court would have accepted the offer, and the conviction or sentence, or both, under the offer's terms would have been less severe than the actual judgment and sentence imposed”
Establishes the four-part Alcorn standard for proving prejudice in ineffective assistance claims involving plea advice
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHogan was offered a three-year plea deal by the state. His trial counsel advised him the maximum sentence he faced was fifteen years based on a second…
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 Prejudice Prong Of Ineffective Assistance Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant filed a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion arguing that trial counsel was ineffective because he misadvised the appellant of the maximum sentence that he faced when considering the state’s plea offer.1 The appellant claims that the state offered him three years’ imprisonment in exchange for pleading guilty to two charges. He claims that counsel advised him the maximum sentence he faced was fifteen years based upon one of the charges, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, a second-degree felony, if the appellant proceeded to trial and was convicted. However, because the state subsequently served him with notice that it intended to seek to have him sentenced as a habitual felony offender, he instead faced thirty years’ imprisonment for the possession of a firearm charge. He argues that had he known that he faced thirty years’ imprisonment he would have taken the three years offered by the state. Instead he proceeded to trial and, upon conviction, was sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment.
The trial court summarily denied the appellant’s claim, concluding that the appellant was not prejudiced because he was sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment, the maximum he thought he was facing when he rejected the plea offer, rather than the 30 years he could have gotten as a habitual felony offender. See generally Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 690, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). However, the trial court’s order is at odds with the recent supreme court decision in Alcorn v. State, 121 So.3d 419 (Fla.2013) (holding that to establish prejudice a defendant must demonstrate that he would have accepted the plea offer had counsel advised the defendant correctly, the prosecutor would not have withdrawn the plea offer, the court would have accepted the offer, and the conviction or sentence, or both, *112under the offer’s terms would have been less severe than the actual judgment and sentence imposed).
Consequently, we reverse the summary denial of this claim and remand for the trial court to either attach the portion of the record that conclusively refutes the appellant’s claim, as analyzed under Al-corn, or to hold an evidentiary hearing on the matter.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.
WETHERELL, SWANSON, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984)
- Alcorn v. State, 121 So. 3d 419 (Fla. 2013)
- White v. White, 627 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)