Campbell v. State
Decision Date | 06 June 2014 |
Docket Number | No. 2D13–3307.,2D13–3307. |
Citation | 139 So.3d 490 |
Parties | Tecoy Marquis CAMPBELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Tecoy Marquis Campbell, pro se.
Tecoy Marquis Campbell appeals the order summarily denying his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with directions.
Campbell entered an open plea of no contest to sale of a controlled substance and to possession of a controlled substance, and the trial court sentenced him as a habitual felony offender (HFO) to fifteen years' imprisonment for the sale count to be served concurrently with five years' imprisonment for the possession count. After this court affirmed his convictions and sentences, Campbell filed the postconviction motion at issue in this appeal.
In order to establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel during the plea process, a postconviction movant must show that counsel's performance was deficient and that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, the movant would not have entered a plea but would have insisted on going to trial. Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 58–59, 106 S.Ct. 366, 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985).
In ground one of his rule 3.850 motion, Campbell argued that his plea was involuntary because the trial court never informed him that it constituted a waiver of his right to remain silent, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses on his behalf, to confront his accusers, and to appeal all matters relating to the judgment, including the issue of guilt or innocence. SeeFla. R. Crim. P. 3.172(c)(3), (4). Campbell noted that the trial court provided him with a waiver of rights form and asked him if he understood the rights he was waiving but that it never determined whether the form had been read and explained to him or if he had the requisite education level or mental capacity to understand the form. See Townsend v. State, 927 So.2d 1064, 1066 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) .
The postconviction court failed to address this claim. However, because Campbell did not allege how the trial court's failures prejudiced him, seeFla. R. Crim. P. 3.172(j) ( ), we reverse and remand for the postconviction court to strike this claim and provide Campbell sixty days to amend it to state a facially sufficient claim for relief, if he can do so in good faith. SeeFla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f)(2); see also Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 754, 761 (Fla.2007).
In ground two of his motion, Campbell argued that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to apprise him that he had a right to confront witnesses against him and a right to review of the judgment but that he was giving up those rights by entering a plea. Campbell asserted that he would not have waived these rights if he had been advised of them and afforded an opportunity to depose the witnesses against him. He argued that trial counsel's failure rendered his plea involuntary.
In denying this claim, the postconviction court found that the acknowledgment and waiver of rights form it attached to its order showed that Campbell understood that by entering a plea, he was waiving his right to a trial, including the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses. But a waiver of rights form can only refute a defendant's claim of involuntary plea if the trial court conducted a proper plea colloquy and determined that the defendant understood the form. See Townsend, 927 So.2d at 1066 ( ). In this case, the transcript of the plea hearing the postconviction court attached to its order shows that the trial court failed to make many of the inquiries required by rule 3.172(c). See Koenig v. State, 597 So.2d 256, 258 (Fla.1992) ( ). Nevertheless, this claim is facially insufficient because Campbell did not allege that he was prejudiced by counsel's failure to advise him of all of the rights he was waiving. See Cousino v. State, 770 So.2d 1258, 1260 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) ( ). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the postconviction court to strike this claim and provide Campbell sixty days to amend it to state a facially sufficient claim for relief, if he can do so in good faith. SeeFla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f)(2); see also Spera, 971 So.2d at 761.
In ground three of his motion, Campbell argued that his plea was involuntary because the trial court failed to disclose how long the maximum sentence would be and to advise him that he could receive any sentence up to the maximum allowed by law. SeeFla. R. Crim. P. 3.172(c)(1) ( ). Campbell asserted that if he had been properly apprised of the maximum penalty, he would not have entered a plea but would have insisted on going to trial. This claim is facially sufficient.
In denying this claim, the postconviction court found that the acknowledgment and waiver of rights form reflects that Campbell understood that he could face a maximum sentence of fifteen years plus five years and that he was entering an open plea. Again, the postconviction court could not rely on the waiver of rights form because the trial court failed to conduct a proper plea colloquy and determine whether Campbell understood the form. See Townsend, 927 So.2d at 1066. Because this claim is not conclusively refuted by the attachments to the postconviction court's order, we reverse and remand for the court to attach portions of the record that conclusively refute this claim or to hold an evidentiary hearing.
In ground four of his motion, Campbell argued that his plea was involuntary because the trial court failed to inform him of the maximum possible habitual offender penalty and to discern whether he understood that the HFO designation could cause him to be ineligible for certain programs affecting early release. See Ashley v. State, 614 So.2d 486, 490 n. 8 (Fla.1993) ( ); Marckman v. State, 997 So.2d 1275, 1276 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (). Campbell noted that the judgment and sentence fail to reflect the trial court's oral pronouncement that he was sentenced as a HFO. He asserted that the only option under these circumstances is to allow him to withdraw his plea.
In denying this claim, the postconviction court found that the plea hearing transcript showed that the trial court informed Campbell that he qualified as a HFO, the State specified the resulting enhancement, Campbell did not object, and defense counsel stated that he had no objection to the introduction of evidence of Campbell's prior convictions, agreeing that they were accurate. While the court's finding fails to address Campbell's allegation that he was not advised of the consequences of habitualization, Campbell failed to allege how he was prejudiced by this failure. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the postconviction court to strike this claim and provide Campbell sixty days to amend it to state a facially sufficient claim for relief, if he can do so in good faith. SeeFla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f)(2); see also Spera, 971 So.2d at 761.
The postconviction court also failed to address Campbell's assertion that the written judgment fails to reflect the trial court's oral pronouncement that it sentenced him as a HFO. On remand, the postconviction court shall address this claim and correct the judgment if necessary. See Nelson v. State, 1 So.3d 345, 345 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (); see also Rivera v. State, 117 So.3d 449, 449 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) ().
In ground five of his motion, Campbell argued that trial counsel was ineffective for advising him to enter an open plea and reject the State's first offer of five to seven years' imprisonment in exchange for not disclosing the identity of the confidential informant (CI). He asserted that counsel misled him and his mother to believe that he faced a maximum of five...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
White v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't. of Corr.
......§. 2254 (Petition; Doc. 1). [ 1 ] In the Petition, White challenges a 2015. state court (Duval County, Florida) judgment of conviction. for second-degree murder. She raises eleven grounds for. relief. See Petition at ... . . Counsel, however, cannot be held ineffective for failing to. raise a meritless argument or motion. Campbell v. State , 139 So.3d 490, 498 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). If the. facts contained within the record in conjunction with case. law ......
-
White v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't. of Corr.
......§. 2254 (Petition; Doc. 1). [ 1 ] In the Petition, White challenges a 2015. state court (Duval County, Florida) judgment of conviction. for second-degree murder. She raises eleven grounds for. relief. See Petition at ... . . Counsel, however, cannot be held ineffective for failing to. raise a meritless argument or motion. Campbell v. State , 139 So.3d 490, 498 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). If the. facts contained within the record in conjunction with case. law ......
-
State v. Fredericks
...Fourth Amendment, thus making the defendant’s reliance on Gant "misplaced," according to the state. See , e.g. , Campbell v. State , 139 So. 3d 490, 497-98 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (counsel’s failure to file motion to suppress search results of defendant’s vehicle was not deficient performance wh......
-
Filipkowski v. State
...when not conclusively refuted by the record. Baker v. State, 879 So.2d 663, 664 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) ; see also Campbell v. State, 139 So.3d 490, 494 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (holding that a defendant's allegation that had he been properly advised of the maximum penalty that he faced he would not ......