LEGRAND JEAN PAUL, 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.
Legrand Jean Paul appeals the summary denial of his rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the summary denial of his first ground claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for rejecting a favorable plea offer, while affirming the denial of his remaining grounds.
The court reversed the summary denial of Paul's first ground, holding that Paul's ineffective assistance claim satisfied the Alcorn test and was sufficiently pleaded such that the trial court must either attach records conclusively refuting the claim or hold an evidentiary hearing. The court affirmed the summary denial of Paul's remaining grounds.
[1] A defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for misadvising the defendant to reject a favorable plea offer may satisfy the elements of Alcorn v. …
[2] A defendant alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for misadvising them regarding a plea offer must allege that, had they been properly advised, they would have accep…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“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”
Establishes that Paul's ineffective assistance claim met the legal standard required for such claims under Alcorn.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePaul was convicted by jury of two counts of sexual activity with a child, nine counts of showing obscene material to a minor, and two counts of promot…
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 Alford Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
Legrand Jean Paul appeals an order summarily denying his rule 3.850 motion. We reverse and remand as to his first ground, and otherwise affirm.
Paul was convicted following a jury trial of two counts of sexual activity with a child, nine counts of showing obscene material to a minor, and two counts of promoting sexual performance by a child. The trial court sentenced Paul to consecutive thirteen year terms on counts one and two, and concurrent ten and five year terms on the other counts. The trial court subsequently mitigated count two to a seven year term.
In ground 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 judge could impose a twenty-six year term. Further, counsel failed to advise him of the sexual predator designation or the possibility of civil commitment after incarceration. Paul also alleged that counsel did not review the evidence with him and explain why the case was not defensible.
In accordance with Alcorn, Paul alleged that had he been advised of his 130-year exposure or been told about the strength of the State’s case, he would have asked counsel to continue plea negotiations. If unsuccessful, he would have accepted the ten-year offer. Acknowledging that he protested his innocence, Paul alleged that counsel should have explained the concept of a “best interest” plea. See Jacques v. State, 193 So.3d 1065 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (remanding for further Alcorn review and commenting “[ejven those who believe they are innocent may enter a plea under North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970)”).,
Paul asserted that the ten-year offer remained open until trial, the prosecutor would not have withdrawn the offer, and nothing indicates that the court would have rejected the ten-year term, which is less than the sentence imposed. See Al-corn, 121 So.3d at 422. We conclude that the claim was sufficiently pleaded and reverse the summary denial for the trial court to either attach records conclusively refuting Paul’s claim, or in the alternative, hold an evidentiary hearing. We affirm the summary denial of Paul’s remaining grounds without further discussion.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.
WARNER, TAYLOR and KLINGENSMITH, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wait v. State, 212 So. 3d 1082 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…fer’ ” can state a facially valid postconviction claim, and that defendant must allege that “counsel’s assessment of the chances of success at trial was unreasonable” (quoting Colon v. State, 909 So. 2d 484, 490 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005))); Paul v. State, 198 So. 3d 999, 1000 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (ordering hearing on claim, based in part on defendant’s claim that counsel failed to inform him of maximum sentence or “why case was not defensible”). Here, despite defense counsel’s unrebutted testimony that she informed…
-
McGriff v. State, 229 So. 3d 829 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)…ences, which permitted the twenty year prison term for the second degree felony. § 775.084(4)(a), Fla. Stat. (2012). We find appellant’s claim is sufficient and not refuted by the record. Alcorn v. State, 121 So. 3d 419 (Fla. 2013); Paul v. State, 198 So. 3d 999 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s summary denial of the claim and remand for it to either attach records conclusively refuting appellant’s claim, or in the alternative, to hold an evidentiary hearing. We affirm the summa…
Authorities Cited
- North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (U.S. 1970)
- Alcorn v. State, 121 So. 3d 419 (Fla. 2013)
- Dieugrand Jacques v. State, 193 So. 3d 1065 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)
- Dominique Brice v. State, 162 So. 3d 81 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)