Rackley v. State, 90-810
| Citation | 571 So.2d 533 |
| Decision Date | 11 December 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 90-810,90-810 |
| Parties | 15 Fla. L. Weekly D3029 Michael L. RACKLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Michael L. Rackley, pro se.
No appearance for appellee.
Appellant/defendant appeals the trial court's summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850. We reverse the denial with regard to two of the five grounds raised in the motion, and remand for further proceedings.
On April 17, 1989, appellant entered a negotiated plea of guilty to one count of sale of cocaine, the State agreeing to recommend a sentence of ten years incarceration "with credit for 95 days as an [habitual offender]." In a separate hearing conducted on April 21, 1989, the trial court found appellant to be a habitual felony offender within the meaning of section 775.084, Florida Statutes, and imposed a sentence of ten years incarceration pursuant to the negotiated plea. The written sentence entered by the court that date specifically stated "The defendant shall not be eligible for gain-time granted by the Department of Corrections except that the Department may grant up to 20 days of incentive gain-time each month as provided for in section 994.275(4)(b)."
In February of 1990, appellant filed the instant motion for post-conviction relief. According to the factual allegations contained in the motion, appellant's original assistant public defender told appellant that he was "looking at" a term of four years whether he stood trial or pled, and that the State had offered a four-year deal if he agreed to plead guilty. Seeing no reason to enter a plea, appellant rejected the offer. Approximately two weeks later, a new assistant public defender allegedly told appellant again that the most he could receive, even if he went to trial, was four years. In April of 1989, appellant learned that the State intended to seek habitual felony offender status. He later appeared before the trial court, and was informed that he was now facing a possible 30-year sentence with a 10-year mandatory minimum. Subsequently, the second assistant public defender informed him that the State had agreed to a 10-year habitual offender sentence if appellant would enter a plea of guilty. According to appellant, she then informed him that, although he would not be eligible for administrative gain-time, he would still be eligible to have one third of his sentence reduced by statutory gain-time, would be eligible for 20 days per month of incentive gain-time, and would actually serve about four years. Based on this advice, appellant accepted the State's offer and entered into the negotiated plea of guilty on April 17, 1989. On April 21, 1989, he appeared for sentencing, represented by yet a third assistant public defender. According to appellant, it was not until the April 21 sentencing hearing that the court first indicated that he would not be eligible for statutory gain-time. Appellant alleged that he asked his counsel at that point what the court meant, but that counsel merely responded "Don't worry." In May of 1989, according to appellant, he learned that he definitely would not be eligible for statutory gain-time, and that he would serve a minimum of six years.
Based on these facts, appellant alleged in his motion that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to inform him, prior to his accepting or rejecting the original four year offer, that he could be prosecuted as a habitual offender. Second, he alleged that the second assistant public defender was ineffective for failing to explain to him that the trial court would be required to provide valid reasons for departing from the four year guideline sentence. Third, appellant alleged that counsel was ineffective for failure to investigate a defense offered to her by the appellant. Fourth, he alleged that counsel was ineffective for failing to inform him that he would not receive statutory gain-time as a habitual offender. And last, he alleged that he was coerced by the trial court and that, because of the above...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morales v. Fla. Attorney Gen. & Sec'y, Case No: 2:14-cv-215-FtM-29CM
...of counsel or coercion are refuted by the written or oral statements to the contrary made at the time of the plea. Rackley v. State, 571 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Stewart v. State, 511 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Jauregui v. State, 652 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). Defendant is b......
-
Caristi v. State, 90-97
...counsel's part amounts to a clear instance of ineffective assistance of counsel, if shown by the facts to be true. Rackley v. State, 571 So.2d 533 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). See Setzer v. State, 575 So.2d 747 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). Hence, the trial court's failure to follow the formal precepts of r......
-
Arocho v. Sec'y, DOC
...of counsel or coercion are refuted by the written or oral statements to the contrary made at the time of the plea. Rackey v. State, 571 So. 2d 533 (Fla, 1st DCA 1990); Stewart v. State, 511 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Jauregui v. State, 652 So. 2d (Fla. 3rd DCA 2005). The plea form indi......
-
Rivero v. State
...cannot now assert that at the time of the plea's entry he had serious doubts about his attorney's effectiveness.”); Rackley v. State, 571 So.2d 533, 535 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (affirming summary denial of the defendant's rule 3.850 claim of coercion and noting that on numerous occasions the co......