State v. Hatton, 2D13–952.
| Decision Date | 23 July 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D13–952.,2D13–952. |
| Citation | 143 So.3d 1006 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Roland HATTON, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Marilyn Muir Beccue, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellant.
Michael Ufferman of Michael Ufferman Law Firm, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellee.
The State appeals from the postconviction court's order granting relief on one of the claims raised in Roland Hatton's motion for postconviction relief. We affirm in part, and we reverse in part.
For offenses occurring in 2003, Mr. Hatton was tried and found guilty by a jury of sexual activity by a person in familial authority and lewd and lascivious exhibition. The trial court sentenced him to thirty years in prison on the sexual activity charge and fifteen years in prison on the lewd and lascivious exhibition charge. Notably, the trial court designated the sentences to run concurrently. Mr. Hatton moved for a new trial, which the trial court granted. Mr. Hatton was again found guilty of both offenses at his second trial. He was resentenced by a different circuit judge. The successor judge sentenced him to thirty years on the sexual activity charge and fifteen years on the lewd and lascivious charge. However, the successor judge designated the sentences to run consecutively instead of concurrently. Thus Mr. Hatton's successful new trial motion ultimately resulted in a forty-five-year prison term instead of the thirty-year term that he had previously received. This court affirmed Mr. Hatton's judgment and sentences resulting from the second trial. Hatton v. State, 970 So.2d 831 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (table decision).
Mr. Hatton filed a motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, raising seven claims for relief. The postconviction court summarily denied all seven of the claims raised. Mr. Hatton appealed, and this court affirmed the postconviction court's denial of all of the claims except claim two. This court reversed the postconviction court's order with regard to that claim and remanded for reconsideration. Hatton v. State, 90 So.3d 839, 840 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012). In claim two, Mr. Hatton “asserted that counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him that he could receive a harsher sentence on retrial” and “contended that he would not have agreed to the filing of a motion for new trial if counsel had informed him of his potential sentence.” Id.
On remand, the postconviction court conducted an evidentiary hearing on claim two. At the conclusion of the hearing, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Larson v. State
...and that counsel did not perform deficiently. These findings are supported by competent substantial evidence. See State v. Hatton, 143 So.3d 1006, 1007 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014).However, Larson's second subsequent motion also raised the issue of counsel's failure to advise him of the direct conseq......
- Facey v. State