MARY SMITH, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed summary denial of postconviction relief on claims of plea coercion and ineffective assistance regarding double jeopardy, holding that a plea agreement alone does not conclusively refute such claims and remanding for evidentiary hearing.
A trial court cannot summarily deny postconviction claims of plea coercion and ineffective assistance of counsel based solely on a plea agreement without an evidentiary hearing or additional documents that conclusively refute the claims.
[1] A plea agreement does not conclusively refute postconviction claims of plea coercion or ineffective assistance of counsel, and a trial court must conduct an evidentiary h…
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 intelligence“postconviction court could not rely on plea form alone; attachment did not establish that trial court conducted proper plea colloquy and determined that appellant understood plea form”
Citing McDonald v. State for the proposition that plea forms are insufficient to conclusively refute postconviction claims
Mary Smith entered a guilty plea to trafficking and manufacturing methamphetamine. She filed a postconviction motion claiming her counsel coerced her …
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 Plea Coercion cases and more on FLexlaw
Mary Smith appeals the summary denial of her motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We conclude that her claims that: (1) she was coerced to enter a plea by her counsel’s statement that she would receive the maximum sentence if she proceeded to trial; and (2) counsel was ineffective in failing to advise her that double jeopardy would preclude her from being convicted of both trafficking in metham-phetamines and manufacturing metham-phetamines were not conclusively refuted by her written plea agreement. See McDonald v. State, 174 So.3d 1068 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (holding that postconviction court could not rely on plea form alone; attachment did not establish that trial court conducted proper plea colloquy and determined that appellant understood plea form); Wilkerson v. State, 128 So.3d 189, 190 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (holding that although defendant entered into negotiated plea agreement, he was not precluded from seeking review of claim that counsel was ineffective in failing to advise him of potential double jeopardy defense prior to entering plea).
Accordingly, as to these two claims,1 we reverse and remand for the trial court to *379either hold an evidentiary hearing, or to attach additional documents that conclusively refute Smith’s claims.
AFFIRMED, in part; REVERSED, in part; and REMANDED.
LAWSON, C.J., and EVANDER and COHEN, JJ,, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Taurean K. Wilkerson v. State, 128 So. 3d 189 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)
- Rohan McDONALD v. State, 174 So. 3d 1068 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)