JAMARL W. VAUGHN, 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.
Jamarl Vaughn appeals the summary denial of his postconviction 3.850 motion claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. The First District affirms the denial of three grounds but reverses as to the first ground, which alleged counsel failed to convey a favorable plea offer, because the claim was facially insufficient and not conclusively refuted by the record.
A claim that counsel failed to convey a plea offer is cognizable in postconviction proceedings. Although Vaughn's claim lacked specific details and failed to properly allege prejudice, it was not conclusively refuted by the record and therefore should not have been summarily denied; instead, he should be given an opportunity to amend his claim.
[1] A claim that counsel performed deficiently in failing to convey a plea offer is cognizable in a postconviction motion.
[2] A defendant should be entitled to at least one opportunity to amend a facially insufficient and unrefuted postconviction claim.
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 performed defi-ciently in failing to convey a plea offer is cognizable in a postconviction motion.”
Establishes that ineffective assistance claims based on failure to convey plea offers are valid grounds for postconviction relief.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceVaughn's attorney informed the trial court just before trial that the State had made a plea offer in 2009. However, there is no indication in the reco…
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 Motion For Postconviction Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
Jamarl W. Vaughn appeals the summary denial of his motion seeking postconviction relief brought pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm, without comment, the postconviction court’s denial of the appellant’s second, third, and fourth grounds for relief. However, we reverse for further proceedings as to the first ground.
In the Appellant’s first claim for relief, he argued that his attorney failed to convey a favorable plea offer that was extended by the State in 2009. The trial court denied this claim, finding it incredible be*299cause it did not specifically describe the sentence contemplated by the offer and concluding that the claim was also refuted by the record. While the transcripts attached to the trial court’s order confirm that defense counsel informed the trial court just prior to trial that the State made a plea offer in 2009, there is no indication that this offer had been conveyed to the Appellant.
A claim that counsel performed defi-ciently in failing to convey a plea offer is cognizable in a postconviction motion. See Morgan v. State, 991 So.2d 835, 839-40 (Fla.2008), receded from on other grounds by Alcorn v. State, 121 So.3d 419, 433 (Fla.2013). Further, while Appellant’s claim regarding the plea offer lacks specific details and fails to properly allege prejudice, this should be resolved by offering him an opportunity to amend rather than denying his unrefuted claim on the merits. See Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 754, 761-62 (Fla.2007) (concluding that a defendant should be entitled to at least one opportunity to amend a facially insufficient and unrefuted postconviction claim); Harrell v. State, 21 So.3d 166, 169 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (concluding that the denial of a facially insufficient claim that was not conclusively refuted by the record should be reversed and remanded to provide the appellant with an opportunity to amend).
Accordingly, we reverse thé trial court’s summary denial of ground one and remand for further proceedings.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.
LEWIS, C.J., and BENTON, J., concur; THOMAS, J., Dissents Without Opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
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)
- Price v. Flagler Cnty. Schs., 21 So. 3d 166 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)
- Harrell v. State, 21 So. 3d 166 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)