WISNIA ETIENNE, 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.
The court affirmed the denial of postconviction relief where the defendant's ineffective assistance claim failed because the trial court's explicit warnings during the plea colloquy that it could sentence above the state's offer negated reliance on counsel's contrary advice.
A defendant cannot establish ineffective assistance of counsel based on attorney misadvice about sentencing when the trial court explicitly informed the defendant during the plea colloquy that it could sentence above the state's offer and the defendant acknowledged no one had advised him of his actual sentence.
[1] A defendant cannot rely on counsel's misadvice regarding sentencing when the trial court explicitly warned during the plea colloquy that it could impose a sentence exceed…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Wisnia Etienne received a twenty-five year sentence after rejecting the state's fifteen-year plea offer and pleading open to the court. He c…
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 Reliance On Attorney'S Advice cases and more on FLexlaw
We affirm the trial court’s order denying appellant’s motion for postconviction relief from his twenty-five year sentence. He claims that his attorney was ineffective for misadvising him that he would be sentenced between eight and fifteen years if he rejected the state’s offer of fifteen years and pled open to the court. However, during the plea colloquy, the court specifically told appellant that the court could sentence him above the state’s offer up to a maximum of life in prison and confirmed that appellant understood. The court asked him if he understood that no one, at that point in time, knew what his sentence would be. The court further asked appellant whether anyone had advised him of what his sentence would be if he pled no contest, to which the appellant responded “no.” The trial court informed him of the minimum and maximum for the crime. These facts from the record show conclusively that appellant could not rely on his attorney’s advice in the face of the trial court’s specific explanation that it could sentence him above the state’s plea offer of fifteen years and appellant’s agreement that no one had advised him of what his sentence would be. See Alfred v. State, 71 So.3d 138, 139 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011); Alfred v. State, 998 So.2d 1197, 1199-200 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). As to appellant’s second ground for relief, we also affirm. See United States v. Hoffman, 733 F.2d 596 (9th Cir.1984); United States v. Mouzin, 785 F.2d 682 (9th Cir.1986).
Affirmed.
WARNER, STEVENSON and FORST, JJ., concur. '
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Delapena v. Fla. Dep't of Corr. (S.D. Fla. 2025)
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Mouzin, 785 F.2d 682 (9th Cir. 1986)
- United States v. Hoffman, 733 F.2d 596 (9th Cir. 1984)
- Dorris v. State, 998 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)
- Makendy Alfred v. State, 71 So. 3d 138 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)
- Makendy Alfred v. State, 998 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)