DAVID MEARA, 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.
David Meara appealed the denial of his postconviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to convey his acceptance of a plea offer and for failing to request a downward departure sentence. The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that Meara failed to establish the required elements under Alcorn v. State, particularly that the prosecutor would not have withdrawn the offer.
The court affirmed the trial court's summary denial, holding that Meara failed to establish a reasonable probability that the prosecutor would not have withdrawn the offer, and that he could not show a reasonable probability the sentencing judge would have downwardly departed based on evidence that was already presented at sentencing.
[1] A defendant claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to convey a plea offer must show a reasonable probability that they would have accepted the offer, the…
[2] A prosecutor may withdraw a plea offer at any time prior to its acceptance by the court.
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“In cases where a defendant is claiming ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to convey a plea offer, Alcorn requires that the defendant show a reasonable probability, defined as a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome, that: (1) he would have accepted the offer; (2) the prosecutor would not have withdrawn the offer; (3) the court would have accepted the offer; and (4) the conviction or sentence would have been less severe than what was imposed.”
Establishes the four-part test from Alcorn that a defendant must satisfy to prove ineffective assistance for failure to convey a plea offer.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMeara was convicted and received a sentence. The state had offered him a plea deal in exchange for testimony against co-defendants. Before counsel cou…
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 Communication cases and more on FLexlaw
We affirm the trial court’s summary denial of appellant’s postconviction relief motion in which he alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to convey his acceptance of the state’s plea offer. He has not met the requirements of Alcorn v. State, 121 So.3d 419 (Fla.2013).
In cases where a defendant is claiming ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to convey a plea offer,1 Alcorn requires that the defendant show a reasonable probability, defined as a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome, that: (1) he would have accepted the offer; (2) the prosecutor would not have withdrawn the offer; (3) the court would have accepted the offer; and (4) the conviction or sentence would have been less severe than what was imposed. 121 So.3d at 430. Appellant’s motion does not show a reasonable probability that the prosecutor would not have withdrawn the offer had counsel immediately conveyed appellant’s acceptance of it. It is clear from his own motion that the prosecutor was negotiating to obtain testimony against appellant’s co-defendants in exchange for a more lenient sentence. When the prosecutor obtained an agreement with a defendant in an unrelated case to testify against the appellant and his co-defendants in this ease, he withdrew the offer to appellant. The state may withdraw its offer at any time prior to acceptance by the court. See Fla. R. Crim P. 3.172(g). These circumstances do not show a reasonable probability that the state would have maintained its offer when it no longer needed the testimony of appellant.
Appellant also contends that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a downward departure sentence and to present mitigating evidence to support it. The trial court properly rejected this claim, as the court was presented with all of the mitigating evidence in support of appellant’s request for a youthful offender *370sentence. The sentencing judge rejected it for that purpose, and appellant cannot show that there was any reasonable probability that the judge would have then downwardly departed based upon the same reasons.
Affirmed.
GROSS and CONNER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Alcorn v. State, 121 So. 3d 419 (Fla. 2013)
- Brown v. State, 138 So. 3d 510 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)