DOMINIQUE BRICE, 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.
Dominique Brice appealed the summary denial of her rule 3.850 motion claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for rejecting a plea offer. The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the denial of ground one because Brice adequately pleaded that counsel's assessment of trial success was unreasonable, warranting an evidentiary hearing, while affirming the denial of her remaining grounds.
The court reversed the summary denial of ground one because Brice made sufficient allegations that counsel's assessment of the chances of success at trial was unreasonable under the facts and circumstances, satisfying the pleading requirements for ineffective assistance in plea-offer cases. The court affirmed the summary denial of the remaining grounds without discussion.
[1] A defendant alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for being misadvised to reject a plea offer must demonstrate a reasonable probability that they would have accepted…
[2] To establish prejudice from counsel's ineffective advice regarding a plea offer, a defendant must allege that counsel's assessment of the chances of success at trial was…
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“Some specific deficiency on the part of counsel must be alleged[,] such as, an 'allegation that counsel's assessment of the chances of success at trial was unreasonable under the facts and circumstances of [the] case or [that] counsel had not investigated or otherwise was not familiar with the case.'”
Establishes the legal standard for pleading ineffective assistance of counsel in plea-offer rejection cases under Morgan v. State.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBrice was charged with two counts of vehicular homicide after losing control of her vehicle and striking two men standing beside motorcycles on an int…
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 (In Ineffective Assistance Claims) cases and more on FLexlaw
Dominique Brice appeals an order summarily denying her rule 3.850 motion. We reverse as to ground one, and otherwise affirm.
Brice was charged with two counts of vehicular homicide after she lost control of her vehicle and struck and killed two men, who had been standing at the side of the interstate highway beside their motorcycles. Although she and her brother — a passenger in her vehicle — testified at trial that external traffic conditions caused her to lose control, numerous state witnesses testified that she was speeding, weaving, and driving recklessly before the accident. She was found guilty as charged and sentenced to 222 months (18.5 years) in prison, the lowest permissible sentence generated by her Criminal Punishment Code scoresheet.1
In ground one, Brice claims that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to properly convey a five-year plea offer allegedly made by the state. She asserts that she rejected the offer because counsel advised her to do so, failing to properly evaluate the facts of the case and explain the likelihood of a conviction and lengthy sentence. She alleged that there was a reasonable probability that she would have accepted the offer and that the plea would have been entered without the prosecutor withdrawing it or the judge refusing to accept it. She explained that, despite the overwhelming evidence that she had caused the death of the victims by recklessly operating a motor vehicle, counsel told her the state “had no case” and told her to “reject the plea offer.” Counsel also allegedly failed to inform her that she could avoid the lifetime suspension of her driver’s license by accepting the offer.
In Morgan v. State, 991 So.2d 835 (Fla.2008), the supreme court held that an allegation that counsel was ineffective for mi-sadvising the defendant to reject a plea offer could entitle a defendant to an evi-dentiary hearing. But, “[s]ome specific deficiency on the part of counsel must be alleged[,]” such as, an “allegation that counsel’s assessment of the chances of success at trial was unreasonable under the facts and circumstances of [the] case or *83that counsel had not investigated or otherwise was not familiar with the case.” Id. at 841.
After the Supreme Court of the United States issued Lafler v. Cooper, — U.S. —, 132 S.Ct. 1376, 182 L.Ed.2d 398 (2012), and Missouri v. Frye, — U.S. —, 132 S.Ct. 1399, 182 L.Ed.2d 379 (2012), the Florida Supreme Court decided Alcorn v. State, 121 So.3d 419 (Fla.2013). Now, to show prejudice in such cases, the defendant must demonstrate a reasonable probability that: (1) the defendant would have accepted the offer had counsel advised the defendant correctly; (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 the judgment and sentence imposed. Id. at 430.
Brice made all these allegations, including that counsel’s assessment of the chances of success at trial was unreasonable under the facts and circumstances of this case. The motion specified that counsel should have been aware of the strength of the state’s case fi-om witness statements and depositions. She attached a summary of the testimony given by the state’s witnesses at trial. We conclude that the claim was sufficiently pleaded and reverse the summary denial of this ground for further proceedings. We affirm the summary denial of Brice’s remaining grounds without further discussion.
Affirmed in part. Reversed in part and remanded.
WARNER; TAYLOR and MAY, JJ.; concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Inestin Petit-Homme v. State, 205 So. 3d 848 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…offer, as would the trial judge, given “the general practice of accepting plea negotiations between the State and the defense.” He also alleged the prosecutor would not have withdrawn the offer. The record does not refute the claim. Brice v. State, 162 So. 3d 81, 83 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). The trial court summarily denied relief on this ground based on the State’s response that argued appellant failed to allege or demonstrate that he could not have raised this claim within two years of his adjudications becom…
-
Legrand Jean Paul v. State, 198 So. 3d 999 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…one, Paul claimed that counsel was ineffective for misadvising him to reject a favorable plea offer. His motion satisfied the elements of Alcorn v. State, 121 So. 3d 419 (Fla.2013), and the record on appeal does not refute the claim Brice v. State, 162 So. 3d 81, 83 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). Paul alleged that the State offered him a ten-year plea which was “subject to. negotiation.” He claimed that, when relaying the offer, counsel failed to advise him of the maximum penalty of 130 years in prison, or that the…
-
Maykel Torres v. State, 45 Fla. L. Weekly D689 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020)…that counsel misadvised him as to the likelihood that he would be convicted at trial by failing to advise him about the stealthy entry inference. See Mook v. State, No. 4D19-1422, 45 Fla. L. Weekly D689 (Fla. 4th DCA Mar. 25, 2020); Brice v. State, 162 So. 3d 81, 82-83 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). He also alleged a reasonable probability that he would have accepted the plea, and would have received a lesser sentence, if counsel had properly advised him. See Alcorn v. State, 121 So. 3d 419, 430 (Fla. 2013).1 Acco…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (U.S. 2012)
- Alcorn v. State, 121 So. 3d 419 (Fla. 2013)
- Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134 (U.S. 2012)
- Morgan v. State, 991 So. 2d 835 (Fla. 2008)