WILLIAM CASIANO, 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 appellate court reversed the denial of a motion for post-conviction relief, finding that the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel regarding a rejected plea offer was not conclusively refuted by the record. The case highlights the importance of counsel advising defendants about potential minimum mandatory sentences.
The court held that the trial court erred in denying the motion without a hearing because the record did not conclusively refute Appellant's allegations. Appellant's claim of misadvice regarding the minimum mandatory sentence and resulting prejudice was facially sufficient.
[1] A defendant seeking relief for counsel's misadvice regarding a plea offer must establish that they would have accepted the offer, the prosecutor would not have withdrawn…
[2] Defense counsel has a duty to advise a defendant about the possibility of a minimum mandatory sentence.
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“We reverse and remand the order denying Appellant’s Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion because Appellant’s claim of misadvice by trial counsel and the resulting prejudice is not refuted by the record before us.”
Establishes the appellate court's decision and the primary reason for reversal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was charged with sexual battery and alleges he rejected a favorable plea offer because his attorney failed to inform him of a potential twen…
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 Offer Advice cases and more on FLexlaw
We reverse and remand the order denying Appellant’s Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion because Appellant’s claim of misadvice by trial counsel and the resulting prejudice is not refuted by the record before us.
Appellant was charged with sexual battery with a' deadly weapon or physical force. The maximum penalty for this crime was life in prison with a twenty-five-year minimum mandatory, with the latter being imposed if the defendant used a deadly weapon. §§ 794.011(3), 775.082(3)(a)3., 794.0115(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (2013). Appellant alleges that he was offered and rejected a favorable plea offer not knowing that he faced a minimum mandatory of twenty-five years in prison. Had he known about the minimum mandatory, Appellant alleges that he would have accepted the plea offer and that the trial court would have abided by the plea agreement.
*527To obtain relief on a claim that defense counsel misadvised the defendant in a way that caused the defendant to reject a plea offer, the defendant must establish that:
(1) he or she would have accepted the offer had counsel advised the defendant correctly, (2) the prosecutor would not have withdrawn the offer, (3) the court would have accepted the offer, and (4) the conviction or sentence, or both, under the offer’s terms would have been less severe than under the judgment and sentence that in fact were imposed.
Alcorn v. State, 121 So.3d 419, 422 (Fla. 2013). Here, Appellant’s allegations were facially sufficient. Defense counsel has a duty to advise a defendant about the possibility of the minimum mandatory sentence. The fact that Appellant did not receive the minimum mandatory sentence in this case because of an error in the verdict form does not negate his claim that he would have taken the plea if he had known he faced a minimum mandatory sentence.
On remand, the trial court shall either grant Appellant a hearing to see if he can prove the Alcorn factors or attach portions of the record that conclusively refute the allegations in the motion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
PALMER, TORPY and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.