Roberti v. State, 2D00-4266.
| Decision Date | 23 March 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D00-4266.,2D00-4266. |
| Citation | 782 So.2d 919 |
| Parties | Ronald W. ROBERTI, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Marisa Tinkler Mendez, of Marisa Tinkler Mendez, P.A., Coral Gables, for Appellant.
No appearance for Appellee.
Ronald W. Roberti appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Roberti pleaded no contest to two counts of handling and fondling and one count of attempted capital sexual battery in exchange for concurrent sentences of seventeen years' prison to be followed by ten years' probation. He now alleges that counsel was ineffective in numerous regards and that his plea was involuntary. We affirm without comment the denial of all of Roberti's claims except one.
Roberti alleges that counsel told him that he would not be subject to the Involuntary Commitment of Sexually Violent Predators Act1 because the court had agreed that the probationary portion of his sentence could be served out of state. This is an incorrect statement of the law. The Act applies to all persons convicted of sexually violent offenses who are sentenced to total confinement. See § 394.925, Fla. Stat. (2000). That the trial court provided for Roberti's probation to be transferred has no effect on this. The Act is in fact applicable to Roberti.
The trial court denied this claim stating that commitment under the Act is a collateral consequence of a plea about which the defendant need not be warned. See Watrous v. State, 26 Fla. L. Weekly D686, ___ So.2d ___, 2001 WL 219982 (Fla. 2d DCA Mar. 7, 2001); Pearman v. State, 764 So.2d 739 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). While this is a correct statement of the law, it fails to address Roberti's actual claim. Roberti alleged not that counsel failed to advise him that his pleas could subject him to commitment under the Act, but rather that counsel affirmatively misadvised him that they could not. Affirmative misadvice about even a collateral consequence of a plea constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel and provides a basis on which to withdraw the plea. See Watrous, 26 Fla. L. Weekly D686, ___ So.2d ___, 2001 WL 219982 (Fla. 2d DCA March 7, 2001); Simmons v. State, 611 So.2d 1250 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Montgomery v. State, 615 So.2d 226 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993).
We, therefore, reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing on this claim. In order to prevail at that hearing Roberti...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dickey v. State, Case No. 1D03-2489 (FL 2/15/2005), Case No. 1D03-2489.
...commitment under the Involuntary Civil Commitment of Sexually Violent Predators Act. See Ghanavati, 820 So. 2d at 989, Roberti v. State, 782 So. 2d 919 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Watrous, 793 So. 2d at 6; (iv) ineligibility for gain time. See Montgomery v. State, 615 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)......
-
United States v. Castro-Taveras
...that an attorney's misrepresentation on a collateral matter may be subject to the Sixth Amendment's protection. See Roberti v. State, 782 So.2d 919, 920 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2001) ; Goodall v. United States, 759 A.2d 1077, 1082 (D.C. 2000) ; State v. Vieira, 334 N.J.Super. 681, 760 A.2d 840, 843–4......
-
Rubio v. State
...advice regarding a collateral consequence could render guilty plea invalid if both prongs of Strickland are met); Roberti v. State, 782 So.2d 919, 920 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2001) (holding that "[a]ffirmative misadvice about even a collateral consequence of a plea constitutes ineffective assistan......
-
Bates v. State
...So.2d 605, 606 (Fla.1988), the applicability of the Involuntary Commitment of Sexually Violent Predators Act, see Roberti v. State, 782 So.2d 919, 920 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), and the loss of the right to vote. See Joyner v. State, 795 So.2d 267, 268 (Fla. 1st DCA In my view, creating a distinct......
-
Beyond Hendricks: the United States Supreme Court Decision in Kansas v. Crane and Other Issues Concerning Kansas' Sexually Violent Predator Act
...App. 1997) (holding that trial counsel had no duty to inform defendant that he may be subject to the SVPA during plea negotiations). 142. 782 So.2d 919 (Fla. App. 2001). 143. Id. at 920. 144. 793 So.2d 6 (Fla. App. 2001). 145. 793 So.2d at 11. 146. 263 Kan. 822, 953 P.2d 666 (1998). 147. Id......