DONTREVIUS BYRON, 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 court reversed in part the summary denial of postconviction relief, finding that a standard plea form language was insufficient to refute the defendant's claim that trial counsel misadvised him about his sentence relative to codefendants.
A general question about promises made in exchange for a plea is insufficient to refute an allegation of specific misadvice by counsel regarding sentence length.
[1] A standard plea form containing general language about promises is insufficient to conclusively refute a defendant's specific allegation that trial counsel misadvised him…
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“[A] general question about promises made in exchange for a plea is insufficient to refute an allegation of specific misadvice by counsel about the length of a sentence.”
The court cited Collazo v. State to establish the standard for evaluating whether a plea form refutes claims of counsel misadvice.
Appellant Byron entered a guilty plea and was sentenced. He filed a postconviction motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, claiming tri…
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 Affirmative Misadvice Of Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, alleging three grounds for relief. We find that the record does not conclusively refute part of Appellant's first *272ground for relief. As part of ground one, Appellant claims that trial counsel told him that he would not be sentenced to a longer sentence than his codefendants. Although the written plea form was attached to the postconviction court's order,1 its standard language, stating, "No person has made any promises to me that induced me to enter this plea," is insufficient to refute Appellant's claim of affirmative misadvice. "[A] general question about promises made in exchange for a plea is insufficient to refute an allegation of specific misadvice by counsel about the length of a sentence." Collazo v. State, 8 So.3d 1273, 1274 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (citations omitted); see Lamkin v. State, 215 So.3d 640, 641 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) ; Ostane v. State, 73 So.3d 335, 335 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011). Accordingly, we reverse the summary denial of this portion of ground one and remand for the postconviction court to either attach additional portions of the record that conclusively refute the claim or hold an evidentiary hearing. We affirm the summary denial as to the remainder of Appellant's ground one as well as grounds two and three in their entirety.
AFFIRMED in Part; REVERSED in Part, and REMANDED for Further Proceedings.
ORFINGER, WALLIS and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Santiago v. State, 252 So. 3d 421 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
-
Santiago v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
Authorities Cited
- Collazo v. State, 8 So. 3d 1273 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)
- Lamkin v. State, 215 So. 3d 640 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)
- Dara Ostane v. State, 73 So. 3d 335 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)