DESHONE STACY, 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.
Stacy appealed the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief based on claims of involuntary plea and ineffective assistance of counsel. The court reversed and remanded because the trial court's use of an outdated plea form containing ambiguous sentencing information prevented summary dismissal of Stacy's claim that counsel misadvised him regarding his maximum possible sentence.
The trial court erred in summarily denying the postconviction motion because the record contained ambiguities regarding the maximum sentence that were not conclusively refuted, and Stacy's claim that counsel misadvised him about sentencing could not be resolved without an evidentiary hearing or attachment of conclusive portions of the record.
[1] A motion for postconviction relief must be granted, denied, or set for an evidentiary hearing, with the record attached if the denial is summary and the attached portions…
[2] A plea colloquy may be insufficient to conclusively refute a claim of involuntary plea or ineffective assistance of counsel if there is ambiguity regarding the maximum po…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the portions of the record supporting the summary denial reflect an ambiguity in connection with what was represented to be Stacy's maximum sentence, in that the plea form which he signed was an outdated form which did not detail sentencing under the Criminal Punishment Code, but referred instead to the sentencing guidelines which were not applicable to his offense”
Establishes the core problem with the plea form—it contained outdated and inapplicable sentencing information, creating ambiguity about Stacy's maximum possible sentence
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceStacy signed a plea form that was outdated and did not reflect the Criminal Punishment Code applicable to his offense. The form contained conflicting …
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 Criminal Punishment Code cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse and remand the summary denial of Stacy’s motion for postconviction relief for the attachment of portions of the record that conclusively refute his claims of involuntary plea and ineffective assistance of counsel, or for an evidentiary hearing.
Just as in Robinson v. State, 792 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), the portions of the record supporting the summary denial reflect an ambiguity in connection with what was represented to be Stacy’s maximum sentence, in that the plea form which he signed was an outdated form which did not detail sentencing under the Criminal Punishment Code, but referred instead to the sentencing guidelines which were not applicable to his offense. In one paragraph, the form indicated that the judge could sentence him to up to the maximum prison months computed under the sentencing guidelines; in another, it stated that his maximum possible penalty was fifteen years (the statutory maximum for his offense). Although Stacy represented at the plea colloquy that he read and understood the form, there was no clarification of how his maximum possible sentence had been calculated, and thus his claim that counsel misadvised him that he could be sentenced to no more than sixteen months (under the guidelines) has not been conclusively refuted.
We note that the trial court denied the same motion in two different orders, as to two cases which were consolidated for plea and sentencing. The order summarily denying the motion as to L.T. case no. 99-1 has already been affirmed in this court’s case no. 4D02-1357. See Stacy v. State, 829 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (Table). We hereby vacate that affirmance and likewise reverse and remand the summary denial in that case, on the same basis as we do in this case.
GUNTHER, GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Petrarca v. State, 105 So. 3d 668 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…a downward departure based on restitution to be paid, he would be sentenced within a “guidelines” range of 34.5 to 57.5 months, though his offenses were committed several years after the Criminal Punishment Code became effective. See Stacy v. State, 885 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); see generally Martino v. State, 83 So. 3d 927 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. Reversed and Remanded. POLEN, CIKLIN and CONNER, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Robinson v. State, 792 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)