INESTIN PETIT-HOMME, 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.
Inestin Petit-Homme, convicted of armed kidnapping in 1999, appealed a summary denial of postconviction relief claiming his trial counsel failed to inform him of a plea offer. The court affirmed the denial of the first ground but reversed and remanded the second ground, finding the claim of ineffective assistance based on counsel's failure to convey the plea offer was not properly dismissed on timeliness grounds.
The court affirmed the summary denial of ground one but reversed the summary denial of ground two. The court held that knowledge of the plea offer by the appellant's half-brother is not imputed to the appellant, and the trial court's finding that the half-brother had unique access to appellant was unsupported by record evidence. The issue of due diligence was adequately pled and can be considered on remand.
[1] Failure of counsel to convey a plea offer to a defendant can constitute ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
[2] Knowledge of a plea offer by a defendant's relative is not automatically imputed to the defendant for purposes of postconviction relief timeliness.
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“Failure of counsel to convey a plea offer can constitute ineffective assistance of trial counsel.”
Establishes the legal standard for the ineffective assistance claim
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetit-Homme was convicted in 1999 of four counts of armed kidnapping and sentenced to life imprisonment with a three-year mandatory minimum. In 2016, …
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 Imputed Knowledge cases and more on FLexlaw
Inestin Petit-Homme appeals a trial court order summarily denying his motion for postconviction relief. We affirm as to ground one and reverse and remand as to ground two.
Appellant was convicted in 1999 of four counts of armed kidnapping. He was sentenced to life in prison with a three year mandatory minimum term. He appealed and this Court per curiam affirmed in Petit-Homme v. State, 845 So.2d 209 (Fla. 4th *849DCA 2003). In this motion for postconviction relief filed in January 2016, appellant raised two grounds. We affirm the trial court’s summary denial of ground one without further discussion.
In ground two, appellant claimed newly discovered evidence of ineffective assistance of his trial counsel for failure to inform him that the State had made, a pretrial plea offer of 20 to 40 years in prison. He alleged that his half-brother Inescio informed him of the offer after a “chance encounter” with defense counsel, Kirk Barrow, in a parking lot. Appellant alleged Barrow never informed him of the plea offer,1 He told Inescio he did not convey the plea offer because he believed he could have won at trial. Appellant alleged Ines-cio did not share the information with him until January 2014. In his affidavit filed with this motion, Inescio alleged that he did not understand the significance of his discussion with Attorney Barrow and would have notified appellant about it sooner had he known the information was time sensitive. He said that once he told appellant of the offer, appellant asked him to prepare an affidavit as soon as possible.
Failure of counsel to convey a plea offer can constitute ineffective assistance of trial counsel. See e.g. Jacques v. State, 193 So.3d 1065 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). Appellant’s claim comports with Alcorn v. State, 121 So.3d 419 (Fla.2013). Appellant said he would have accepted the 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 becoming final. We disagree. Knowledge of the plea offer by appellant’s half-brother is not imputed to appellant. The trial court said the half-brother had unique access to appellant, but no record evidence supports this finding. Even if this were documented, it would not necessarily have meant that appellant learned of the plea offer within two years of his conviction and sentence becoming final, or should have discovered it by exercise of due diligence. ■
The issue of due diligence was adequately pled, but can be considered on remand for either an evidentiary hearing on this claim or record attachments refuting it.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded,
MAY, DAMOORGIAN and GERBER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rashawn Clark v. State, 236 So. 3d 481 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)
-
Taylor v. State, 248 So. 3d 280 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)…861 (Fla. 2003), that "the newly discovered evidence is of such a nature as to probably produce an acquittal" has no application here as Taylor's "newly discovered" claim is based upon an allegedly undisclosed plea offer. See Petit-Homme v. State , 205 So. 3d 848, 849 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (reversing a summary denial of a newly discovered plea offer claim and remanding for further proceedings to address whether the defendant could have learned of the offer within the two-year time limit of rule 3.850 ).…
-
Dungey v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2023)…that the motion, although inartfully drafted, is legally sufficient and that the exhibits attached to the motion and order do not conclusively refute the claim. See, e.g., Tribbitt v. State, 339 So. 3d 1029 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022); Petit-Homme v. State, 205 So. 3d 848 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). We therefore reverse the denial and remand for an evidentiary hearing or the attachment of other records conclusively refuting the claim. REVERSED and REMANDED. LAMBERT, C.J., EDWARDS and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- 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)