RENARDO A. 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.
Renardo Smith appealed a denial of his postconviction motion claiming his trial counsel ineffectively failed to advise him of his mandatory PRR (prison releasee reoffender) sentence enhancement prior to his rejection of plea offers. The First District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing, finding that Smith's claim was not conclusively refuted by the record and that the distinction between a possible 25-year sentence and a mandatory 15-year PRR sentence with no gain time was material to the plea decision.
The court reversed and remanded because Smith's ineffective assistance claim was not conclusively refuted by the record. The material distinction between a possible 25-year sentence and a mandatory 15-year PRR sentence with no good-time eligibility could have affected Smith's decision to accept a plea offer, requiring an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Smith would have accepted the plea with proper advice.
[1] A defendant may be entitled to postconviction relief for ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel's failure to advise the defendant of eligibility for mandatory…
[2] A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel regarding sentencing enhancement advice is not conclusively refuted by the record if the defendant argues the potential sente…
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“Appellant's claim is not conclusively refuted by the record.”
Establishes that the trial court erred in dismissing the ineffective assistance claim without an evidentiary hearing, as the record did not conclusively disprove the claim.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSmith was offered two plea deals but rejected them, believing his maximum sentence exposure was 25 years of imprisonment. He proceeded to a bench tria…
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 Gain Time Eligibility cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant has filed a rule 3.850 postcon-viction motion in which he asserts that his trial counsel acted ineffectively by failing *979to advise him that he qualified'for a mandatory sentence, in addition to other penalties, pursuant to the prison releasee reof-fender (“PRR”) statute, section 775.082(9)(a)l., Florida Statutes (2012), prior to his rejection of two plea offers. He asserts counsel’s failure to advise him of his PRR eligibility caused him to reject the offers and proceed to a bench trial, where he was convicted. Thereafter, the state filed notice that he qualified to be sentenced as a PRR. The court sentenced him as a PRR to the mandatory 15 years for the second-degree felony, which also barred his eligibility to earn gain time as well as participation in work release and early release programs. We reversé.
The trial court denied the claim after finding that Appellant would have proceeded to trial even if he had knowledge he qualified for >PRR enhancement, because he knew his sentence exposure was up to 25 years’ imprisonment when he rejected the plea offers. Appellant argues the 25-year collective sentence was a possibility, but not mandated, as is the situation with the PRR statute, which requires imposition of a statutory maximum sentence. Further, under PRR enhancement’, a defendant must serve the entirety of the sentence, 'with no opportunity to earn gain time, work release, or early reléase.
Appellant’s claim is not conclusively refuted by the record. See Alcorn v. State, 121 So.Sd 419 (Fla. 2013) (discussing four prongs for consideration when evaluating a claim of ineffective assistance for failure to properly advise of actual sentence exposure); Armstrong v. State, 148 So.3d 124, 126 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (stating “ ‘[prejudice ... is determined based upon a consideration of the circumstances as viewed at the time of the offer and what would have been done with proper and adequate advice’ ”) (quoting Alcorn, 121 So.3d at 432) (emphasis in original).' We therefore reverse and remand for the trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing, which will provide the court with “the opportunity to receive evidence and evaluate the credibility of any witnesses in deciding whether Appellant would have accepted the plea, or would have continued to state, T didn’t do it,’ and insist - on. trial.” Mathis. v. State, 848 So.2d 1207; 1209 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
WOLF, RAY, and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ogden v. State, 273 So. 3d 162 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)
Authorities Cited
- Renny Armstrong v. State, 148 So. 3d 124 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)
- Mathis v. State, 848 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)