WILLIAM LAWRENSON, 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.
Lawrenson appeals the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 postconviction relief motion claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for rejecting a plea offer. The appellate court reverses the denial of one ground, holding that a defendant must be afforded an opportunity to amend a facially insufficient postconviction motion.
The court held that claims of ineffective assistance for rejecting plea offers are cognizable in Rule 3.850 motions, and a defendant filing a facially insufficient postconviction motion must be afforded at least one opportunity to cure the pleading deficiencies. The court reversed the denial of ground four and remanded for Lawrenson to have sixty days to amend.
[1] A claim that counsel was ineffective for advising a defendant to reject a plea offer is cognizable in a motion for postconviction relief.
[2] A defendant who files a facially insufficient motion for postconviction relief must be afforded at least one opportunity to cure the pleading deficiencies.
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 claim that counsel was ineffective for advising a defendant to reject a plea offer is cognizable in a motion for postconviction relief.”
Establishes that ineffective assistance claims based on plea offer rejection are valid grounds for Rule 3.850 relief.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLawrenson was charged with sexual battery on a person under twelve and lewd and lascivious molestation. A jury convicted him of sexual battery as char…
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 Plea Offer Rejection cases and more on FLexlaw
William Lawrenson appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We reverse the denial of ground four but affirm the denial of Lawrenson’s other claims without comment.
Lawrenson was charged with sexual battery on a person less than twelve years old and with lewd and lascivious molestation. A jury convicted him of sexual battery as charged and of battery as a lesser-included offense of lewd and lascivious molestation. He was sentenced to life in prison for sexual battery and to time served for battery.
In his rule 3.850 motion, Lawrenson alleged that the State had extended a ten-year plea offer, but his trial counsel advised him to reject the offer, assuring Lawrenson that he would “destroy” the victim on cross-examination. The postcon-viction court ordered the State to respond to this claim and then adopted the response with little explanation.1 In its re*1049sponse, the State correctly contended that Lawrenson’s claim was facially insufficient for its failure to allege a specific deficiency on the part of counsel. See Morgan v. State, 991 So.2d 835, 841 (Fla.2008) (“Some specific deficiency on the part of counsel must be alleged. There is no allegation that counsel’s assessment of the chances of success at trial 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 postconviction relief. See Boyers, 104 So.3d at 1231. The law is settled that a defendant who files a facially insufficient rule 3.850 motion must be afforded at least one opportunity to cure the pleading deficiencies. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f)(3); see also Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 754, 761-62 (Fla.2007).
Accordingly, we reverse the denial of ground four and remand to the postconviction court with direction to grant Lawren-son sixty days’ leave to amend. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f)(3). In so doing, we caution that Lawrenson may amend this claim only to the extent that he can do so in good faith.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
ALTE NBERND and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Abel Puente v. State, 164 So. 3d 9 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)…without making any independent findings. We affirm as to all grounds. But we write to note that the practice of adopting and' incorporating the State’s response — although permissible under the rules — is discouraged. See, e.g., Lawrenson v. State, 143 So. 3d 1048, 1048 n. 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014); Roberts v. State, 113 So. 3d 868, 869 n. 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012); Barnes v. State, 38 So. 3d 218, 219-20 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). Affirmed. CASANUEVA and KELLY, JJ, Concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 2007)
- Alcorn v. State, 121 So. 3d 419 (Fla. 2013)
- Morgan v. State, 991 So. 2d 835 (Fla. 2008)
- Barnes v. State, 38 So. 3d 218 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)
- Boyers v. State, 104 So. 3d 1230 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)