EXALISSE
v.
STATE
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 affirmed in part and reversed in part a lower court's denial of post-conviction relief. The court found that the lower court failed to conclusively refute the appellant's claim that his trial counsel misadvised him about the sentence he would receive.
The appellate court held that the records attached by the trial court did not conclusively refute Exalisse's claim regarding his counsel's misadvice about his sentence. Therefore, the denial of this specific claim was in error.
[1] A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel's misadvice may not be summarily denied if the record does not contain evidence refuting the claim.
[2] A trial court must hold an evidentiary hearing on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel when the plea colloquy does not contain questions regarding the defendant's…
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“The records attached to the trial court’s order do not conclusively refute Exalisse’s claim that his trial counsel had affirmatively mispresented the sentence that Exalisse would receive if he entered an open plea to the court.”
This quote establishes the core reason for reversing the lower court's decision regarding one of Exalisse's claims.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilfred Exalisse appealed the summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief. His motion alleged, among other things, that his trial counsel …
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 Open Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED WILFRED EXALISSE, Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D18-1647 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. ________________________________/ Opinion filed August 24, 2018 3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, John E. Jordan, Judge.
Wilfred Exalisse, Bushnell, pro se.
No Appearance for Appellee.
PER CURIAM. Wilfred Exalisse appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm, except as to the denial of Exalisse’s second claim. The records attached to the trial court’s order do not conclusively refute Exalisse’s claim that his trial counsel had affirmatively mispresented the sentence that Exalisse would receive if he entered an open plea to the court. See,
e.g., Collazo v. State, 8 So. 3d 1273, 1274 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (holding the general question during plea colloquy about promises made in exchange for plea is insufficient to conclusively refute allegation of specific misadvice by counsel about length of sentence).
On remand, the trial court shall either attach additional records conclusively refuting this claim or hold an evidentiary hearing.
AFFIRMED, in part; REVERSED, in part; and REMANDED.
TORPY, EVANDER and BERGER, JJ., concur.