Zduniak v. State
| Decision Date | 25 June 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 93-01435,93-01435 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
| Parties | 18 Fla. L. Week. D1510 Mark J. ZDUNIAK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Mark Zduniak appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Of the four issues raised in the motion, only two merit extended comment. First, Zduniak contends that his trial attorney was ineffective for having failed to file a timely notice of appeal. See State v. District Court of Appeal, First District, 569 So.2d 439 (Fla.1990). Zduniak entered a plea of nolo contendere without reserving any issues for appellate review, and agreed to the specific sentence that he received. Accordingly, he had no right to appeal. Counsel's failure to file a notice, even if Zduniak requested he do so, is immaterial. Bridges v. Dugger, 518 So.2d 298 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987).
A second issue does warrant further proceedings. Zduniak alleges that counsel promised he would actually serve only ten months of his four and one-half-year prison sentence. Zduniak further states that he has learned he will serve at least two years. Because of counsel's incorrect assurances, Zduniak now feels his plea was involuntary. See, e.g., Tarpley v. State, 566 So.2d 914 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Bullard v. State, 477 So.2d 655 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).
If Zduniak's allegations are true, this is yet another case in which a defendant and his attorney speculated about what a certain sentence "really" means.
With or without a specific plea agreement, it can be expected that the "flat-time" sentence ultimately imposed by the court will be further reduced to some extent by gain time. Most defense attorneys, and perhaps a substantial percentage of their clients, presumably know this. However, as Tarpley and similar cases demonstrate, an attorney who promises a certain favorable result--particularly one who does so to convince the client that a "maximum" sentence is shorter than it appears--operates at the risk he or she later will be accused of ineffectiveness.
Simmons v. State, 611 So.2d 1250, 1253 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (footnote omitted ).
The trial court's order refers to a written plea agreement which that court found sufficient to refute this portion of Zduniak's motion. However, the form is not attached to the order denying postconviction relief. The transcript of Zduniak's plea colloquy does not indicate whether additional promises were made to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Trowell v. State
...DCA 1993); Gonzalez v. State, 685 So.2d 975 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Loadholt v. State, 683 So.2d 596 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Zduniak v. State, 620 So.2d 1083 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Bridges and its progeny are based primarily on Robinson v. State, 373 So.2d 898 (Fla.1979), 3 wherein the Florida Supreme......
-
State v. Trowell
...1987), Gonzalez v. State, 685 So.2d 975 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997), Loadholt v. State, 683 So.2d 596 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), and Zduniak v. State, 620 So.2d 1083 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. For the reasons that follow, we approve Ronald Trowell entered a......
-
Warren v. State, 93-02695
...such misrepresentations induced the defendant to plead. See Carmichael v. State, 631 So.2d 346 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Zduniak v. State, 620 So.2d 1083 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Logan v. State, 619 So.2d 350 (Fla. 2d DCA With regard to the first case, there is nothing in the record to conclusively re......
-
Battie v. Singletary, 98-1243
...9.140. See Gonzalez v. State, 685 So.2d 975 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Loadholt v. State, 683 So.2d 596 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Zduniak v. State, 620 So.2d 1083 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Bridges v. Dugger, 518 So.2d 298 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). We certify direct conflict with Trowell v. State, 706 So.2d 332 (Fla......