Douglas v. State , 1D11–1254.
Citation | 67 So.3d 1119 |
Decision Date | 18 July 2011 |
Docket Number | No. 1D11–1254.,1D11–1254. |
Parties | Phillip E. DOUGLAS, Appellant,v.STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
William Mallory Kent of the Law Office of William Mallory Kent, Jacksonville, for Appellant.Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.PER CURIAM.
Appellant seeks review of the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm, without discussion, the summary denial of ground three. However, because the record does not conclusively refute grounds one and two of Appellant's motion, we reverse for an evidentiary hearing on those claims.
At the trial court, the State acknowledged in its court-ordered response to the motion that an evidentiary hearing is required to address Appellant's claims. Likewise, in response to the Toler * order issued by this court, the State conceded that the case should be remanded to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing on grounds one and two. However, the State also raised an issue concerning the timeliness of Appellant's motion.
In ground one, Appellant asserts that counsel affirmatively misadvised him that he would always be classified as “medium risk” if he pled guilty. He alleges that instead, he has been classified as “close” custody. He alleges that “serving a sentence under ‘close custody’ conditions is materially harsher than serving a sentence under ‘medium risk’ classification.” He alleges that but for this misadvice, he would have rejected the plea and insisted on going to trial. This claim is facially sufficient and is properly raised in a postconviction motion. See Colombo v. State, 972 So.2d 1101, 1102 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) ().
In ground two, Appellant asserts that counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge an inculpatory statement he allegedly made in response to police questioning while he was in custody, but where he had not been advised of his Miranda rights. He alleges that had he been aware of the possible suppression of his statement, he would not have pled guilty but would have insisted on going to trial. This claim is facially sufficient. See Williams v. State, 717 So.2d 1066 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) ().
The trial court denied all of Appellant's claims on the ground that he signed a plea, which stated in part:
I hereby enter my plea of guilty because I am guilty. Before entering such plea of guilty, I was advised of the nature of all the charges against me, the statutory offense included within such charges, the range of maximum allowable punishments for each charge, all the possible defenses to each charge, and all circumstances in mitigation of such charges....
To continue reading
Request your trial- Ring Power Corp.. v. Rosier
-
Smith v. State
..., 124 So. 3d 841 (Fla. 2013). Similarly, failure to seek suppression may be a basis for postconviction relief. See Douglas v. State , 67 So. 3d 1119 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). While the trial court attached record excerpts to its order, these attachments do not conclusively refute the legally suf......
-
Post-conviction relief
...and defendant claimed that he would not have pled if he had been properly advised, is sufficient to get a hearing. Douglas v. State, 67 So. 3d 1119 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) An allegation that counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain a ruling on a motion to sever is sufficient to get a heari......