LOIC GADSON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court reversed the summary denial of a Rule 3.850 post-conviction motion where the defendant claimed he was not advised of the maximum possible sentence before entering his plea, finding the claim facially sufficient and requiring an evidentiary hearing.
A defendant's Rule 3.850 motion claiming inadequate advice regarding maximum possible sentence is facially sufficient and requires an evidentiary hearing when the record does not conclusively refute the claim.
[1] A Rule 3.850 post-conviction motion claiming inadequate advice regarding maximum possible sentence is facially sufficient and requires an evidentiary hearing when the rec…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Gadson filed a post-conviction motion under Rule 3.850 claiming the trial court and counsel failed to advise him of the maximum possible sen…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Facial Sufficiency cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse the order summarily denying Appellant’s amended rule 3.850 motion, in which he claimed that the trial court and counsel failed to advise Appellant of the maximum possible sentence he was facing. Although Appellant filed a previous post-conviction motion, the present underlying motion is not impermissibly successive because: the prior motion was filed under rule 3.170; the motion was not explicitly treated by the circuit court as a 3.850 motion; Appellant was not given the opportunity to amend the 3.170 motion as a 3.850 motion; and the state represented that treating that motion as a 3.850 motion would not procedurally bar a later 3.850 motion.
As to the merits of the underlying motion, Appellant claims he was not advised of the maximum possible sentence, and he would not have entered the plea had he known of the maximum possible sentence. This claim is facially sufficient, see Rodriguez v. State, 645 So. 2d 1124 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994), and Byrd v. State, 643 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), and the record portions relied upon by the circuit court do not conclusively refute that claim. The order denying the motion, therefore, is reversed and the case is remanded for an evidentiary hearing or for attachment of additional record excerpts that conclusively refute Appellant’s claim.
STONE, WARNER, and FARMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cal Haynes v. State, 24 So. 3d 726 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…e 3.170 motion did not contain the same claim Haynes presented in ground two of his rule 3.850 motion. The denial of Haynes’s rule 3.170 motion, and this Court’s affirmance of that denial, does not preclude relief now. See generally Gadson v. State, 807 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). Haynes asserts that but for the misad-vice of counsel, he would have accepted the State’s plea offer of four years. If true, this is a viable claim for ineffective assistance of counsel. See Hoswell v. State, 948 So. 2d 820, 82…
-
Scheele v. State, 995 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…to advise him that counsel was under federal investigation for money laundering and other offenses. This claim is not precluded by appellant’s previously filed motion to withdraw plea under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170. Gadson v. State, 807 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). Further, our affir-mance of the trial court’s denial of that earlier motion does not preclude this claim. Although this claim was properly raised, it was based on speculation and was legally insufficient. We reverse the trial…
-
Filipkowski v. State, 252 So. 3d 278 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)
Authorities Cited
- Byrd v. State, 643 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- State v. Mobley, 645 So. 2d 1124 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Rodriguez v. State, 645 So. 2d 1124 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)