Williams v. State
| Decision Date | 16 February 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D05-4448.,2D05-4448. |
| Citation | 974 So.2d 405 |
| Parties | Eric O. WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robin H. Stevenson, Bartow, for Appellant.
Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Chandra Waite Dasrat, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
Eric O. Williams seeks review of the order denying his motion for postonvicton relief, which was filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3,850, after a hearing. Williams raised two grounds for relief in has motion. We affirm the denial of ground two without comment. We reverse the denial of ground one because the State failed to produce evidence to refute Williams' claim that trial counsel was ineffective for misadvising him regarding the maximum sentence he faced.
Williams entered a plea to reduced charges of two counts of robbery with a deadly weapon, and the trial court sentenced him to concurrent fifteen-year terms of imprisonment. In ground one of his rule 3.850 motion, Williams argued that trial counsel was ineffective for misadvising him that he was subject to a mandatory life sentence for the original charges of burglary of a dwelling with a firearm and robbery with a firearm. It is undisputed that these charges did not require a mandatory life sentence.
At the hearing on his motion, Williams testified that he was represented by several attorneys prior to entering his plea. He testified that he met with attorney Aiken a couple of times and that Aiken went over his scoresheet and advised him of the minimum and maximum guidelines sentences. Attorney Aiken did not tell Williams that he would receive a mandatory life sentence if he was convicted. However, when attorney Bradstock took over his case, Bradstock advised Williams that he would receive a mandatory life sentence if he was convicted. Williams entered a plea the same day Bradstock gave him this information. Williams claimed that he would not have entered a plea but for the misadvice.
Consistent with Williams' testimony, attorney Aiken testified that he discussed Williams' scoresheet with him and did not tell Williams he was subject to a mandatory life sentence. Aiken did not remember the maximum penalty for Williams' charges and said he would have to look at the file. However, he never consulted the file in the case. Attorney Bradstock testified that he had a very limited recollection of his discussions with Williams regarding plea negotiations and whether Williams should go to trial. In response to postconviction counsel's questions regarding whether Bradstock advised Williams that he would be subject to a mandatory life sentence, Bradstock replied that he could not recall. Bradstock did not believe that Williams was facing a mandatory life sentence, but he was not sure. Bradstock testified that he discussed the plea agreement with Williams very briefly, for no more than ten or fifteen minutes.
The postconviction court found that Williams' testimony was not credible and denied relief on this basis. The court concluded that it was unlikely that attorney Bradstock would have misinformed Williams about his potential exposure and that attorney Aiken did discuss Williams' potential sentence with him. Williams argues that the court erred in denying his claim because the State failed to conclusively refute his testimony that he was misinformed about his potential exposure. We agree.
A defendant has the burden of proving his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at an evidentiary hearing on a rule 3.850 motion. Green v. State, 857 So.2d 304, 305 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). However, when a defendant presents competent substantial evidence in support of his ineffective assistance claim, the burden...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Amaran v. Sec'y
...substantial evidence at the hearing to support his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel as alleged. See Williams v. State, 974 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); see e.g. Green v. State, 857 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). As Defendant has not demonstrated that counsel was deficient or tha......
-
Williams v. Sec'y
...hearing on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under Rule 3.850, the burden of proof lies with the Defendant. Williams v. State, 974 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). Mr. Jackson testified that he chose not to introduce the photographs because they did not conclusively exonerate the D......
-
Campbell v. State
...carries the burden of proving his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel at such an evidentiary hearing. See Williams v. State, 974 So.2d 405, 407 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) ; see also Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f)(8)(B) ("At an evidentiary hearing, the defendant shall have the burden of presentin......
-
Smith v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.
...argued that Smith did not commit a robbery and the gun accidentally went off. In his Traverse, Smith cites to Williams v. State, 974 So. 2d 405, 407 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) and claims it states that "defendant's credibility can't be denied due to attorney'sreputation alone." In Williams, the app......