MONTUELLE FRANCOIS WRIGHT, 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.
Wright appeals the summary denial of his 3.850 postconviction motion raising twenty-one grounds for ineffective assistance of counsel. The court reverses and remands on ground twenty-one only, which alleges counsel gave inaccurate advice about a suppression motion to discourage acceptance of a favorable plea offer, while affirming denial of all other grounds.
The court reversed the summary denial of ground twenty-one on the narrow ground that Wright's allegations were facially insufficient under Morgan v. State, requiring him to allege specific deficiencies in counsel's conduct and provide details of the forgone plea offer. The court affirmed summary denial of all other grounds without comment.
[1] A defendant alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for rejecting a plea offer based on counsel's advice must allege specific deficiencies in counsel's assessment of t…
[2] A defendant seeking postconviction relief based on counsel's advice to reject a plea offer must provide details regarding the foregone plea offer as part of the prejudice…
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 defendant's allegation that he rejected a plea offer at trial counsel's urging based on counsel's incorrect assertion that the defendant would prevail at trial was not in itself sufficient to establish a basis for postconviction relief”
Establishes the legal standard that mere incorrect prediction of trial outcome is insufficient; specific deficiencies must be alleged
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn February 18, 2008, Wright was convicted of lewd or lascivious battery based in part on his own recorded post-Miranda confession. He was sentenced t…
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 Prejudice Analysis cases and more on FLexlaw
Montuelle Wright appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, in which he raised twenty-one grounds for relief. We reverse and remand for further proceedings on ground twenty-one only and affirm without comment on all other grounds.
On February 18, 2008, Wright was convicted of lewd or lascivious battery, a second-degree felony, and sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment as a prison releasee reoffender (PRR). Specifically, Wright was alleged to have engaged in consensual sexual intercourse with a girl between the ages of twelve and sixteen. A key piece of evidence at trial was Wright’s own recorded post-Miranda 1 admission to these events.
In ground twenty-one, Wright alleged that his counsel was ineffective for advising him to reject a favorable plea offer based on inaccurate assurances that a motion to suppress his confession would be granted. In addition, he alleged that his counsel informed him that she had recently won a case similar to his.
The postconviction court denied this claim, finding that counsel’s assertion that there was a substantial possibility that Wright would receive a favorable ruling on a motion does not translate into misadvice simply because the motion was unsuccessful. Indeed, in Morgan v. State, 991 So.2d 835 (Fla.2008), the supreme court held that the defendant’s allegation that he rejected a plea offer at trial counsel’s urging based on counsel’s incorrect assertion that the defendant would prevail at trial was not in itself sufficient to establish a basis for postconviction relief. The court ruled that the defendant must allege some specific deficiency on the part of counsel, e.g., that counsel’s assessment of the chances of success at trial was unreasonable under the facts and circumstances of the case, or that counsel had not investigated or otherwise was not familiar with the case. Id. at 841. Furthermore, Wright failed to provide any details regarding the allegedly foregone plea offer, which is required as part of the prejudice analysis in claims such as these.2 Id. at 839-40 (citing Cottle v. State, 733 So.2d 963, 967 (Fla.1999)).
*45Because ground twenty-one amounts to a facially insufficient attempt at an otherwise cognizable claim, see Gomez v. State, 832 So.2d 798, 794 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002), we must reverse the summary denial on this ground only. On remand, the postconviction court shall strike ground twenty-one with leave to amend to file a facially sufficient motion within a reasonable time. See Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 754, 761 (Fla. 2007).
Affirmed in part; reversed in part; and remanded.
KELLY and CRENSHAW, JJ„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hogan v. State, 173 So. 3d 903 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)…not allege how long the probation was to be. As such, it is not possible to analyze this offer under Alcorn because it is not possible to know whether the offer was less severe than the judgment and sentence ultimately imposed. See Wright v. State, 113 So. 3d 43, 44 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (“Wright failed to provide any details regarding the allegedly foregone plea offer, which is required as part of the prejudice analysis in claims such as these.”). The trial court held that the defendant could not show prejud…
-
McCray v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)…, 645 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (explaining ineffective assistance of counsel claim on postconviction relief motion is procedurally barred when prior opinion on direct appeal expressly addresses issue of ineffective assistance of counsel); Wright v. State, 113 So. 3d 43, 44 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (“[Appellant] failed to provide any details regarding the allegedly foregone plea offer, which is required as part of the prejudice analysis in claims such as these.”); Griffin v. State, 866 So. 2d 1, 22 (Fla. 2003) (“[W]here…
-
McCray v. Fla. Dep't of Corr. (S.D. Fla. 2024)…ndication or state-law procedural principles to the contrary.”). Rather, when a state court doesn't articulate its reasons for the denial, the federal court must “look through' the unexplained decision to assistance of counsel); Wright v. State, 113 So. 3d 43, 44 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) ("[Appellant] failed to provide any details regarding the allegedly foregone plea offer, which is required as part of the prejudice analysis in claims such as these.”); Griffin v. State, 866 So. 2d 1, 22 (Fla. 2003…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966)
- Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 2007)
- Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (U.S. 2012)
- Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134 (U.S. 2012)
- Cottle v. State, 733 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 1999)
- Morgan v. State, 991 So. 2d 835 (Fla. 2008)