TAUREAN K. WILKERSON, 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.
Taurean Wilkerson appealed the trial court's denial of his post-conviction relief claims under Florida Rule 3.850, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to advise him of double jeopardy issues. The appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that while plea agreements can waive double jeopardy claims on direct appeal, they do not preclude ineffective assistance claims in collateral proceedings.
The court held that while Florida law permits waiver of double jeopardy claims through negotiated plea agreements in direct appeal contexts, such waiver does not apply to collateral rule 3.850 proceedings. Therefore, a defendant may pursue an ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on counsel's failure to advise of double jeopardy issues, notwithstanding the negotiated plea agreement.
[1] A negotiated plea agreement can serve as a basis for waiver of a double jeopardy claim when raised on direct appeal.
[2] A negotiated plea agreement does not preclude a defendant from seeking review of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on counsel's failure to advise of potent…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“such case law applies to double jeopardy claims raised on direct appeal, not collateral appeal”
Establishes the critical distinction between waiver of double jeopardy claims in direct versus collateral proceedings
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilkerson filed a post-conviction relief motion under rule 3.850 raising claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in grounds one and three, specifi…
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 Waiver Of Double Jeopardy cases and more on FLexlaw
Taurean Wilkerson (defendant) appeals the final orders entered by the trial court denying his claims for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to rule 3.850 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. We affirm in part and reverse in part.1
The State properly concedes that the trial court erred in summarily denying grounds one and three of the defendant’s motions, which alleged ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to advise him of potential double jeopardy issues. The trial court summarily denied these claims, concluding that the defendant waived any double jeopardy violations by entering into a negotiated plea agreement on those charges.
The trial court was correct in recognizing that Florida case law provides that a negotiated plea agreement can serve as a basis for waiver of a double jeopardy claim. However, such case law applies to *190double jeopardy claims raised on direct appeal, not collateral appeal. See Novaton v. State, 634 So.2d 607 (Fla.1994); Melvin v. State, 645 So.2d 448 (Fla.1994); Farrar v. State, 42 So.3d 265 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). For double jeopardy claims raised in a collateral rule 3.850 matter, the fact that the defendant entered into a negotiated plea agreement does not preclude him from seeking review of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim which is based on the contention that defense counsel failed to advise him, before he entered his plea, that there were potential double jeopardy issues. See Pearson v. State, 867 So.2d 517, 519 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Weitz v. State, 795 So.2d 1021, 1022 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Hubbard v. State, 662 So.2d 746 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).
Accordingly, the trial court’s summary denial of grounds one and three is reversed, and this matter is remanded for the trial court to either support its summary denial with record excerpts conclusively establishing that the defendant is not entitled to receive any relief or to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the claims.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED.
EVANDER and BERGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sanjaykumar Patel v. State, 163 So. 3d 737 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)…lude him from seeking review of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim which is based on the contention that defense counsel failed to advise him, before he entered his plea, that there were potential double jeopardy issues. Wilkerson v. State, 128 So. 3d 189, 189-90 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (citations omitted). The trial court summarily denied this claim, concluding that the amended information was clear that each conviction was for a separate act and, accordingly, did not violate the prohibition against do…
-
Smith v. State, 207 So. 3d 378 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)…. 3d 1068 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (holding that postconviction court could not rely on plea form alone; attachment did not establish that trial court conducted proper plea colloquy and determined that appellant understood plea form); Wilkerson v. State, 128 So. 3d 189, 190 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (holding that although defendant entered into negotiated plea agreement, he was not precluded from seeking review of claim that counsel was ineffective in failing to advise him of potential double jeopardy defense prior to e…
-
Deidrea Renaye Graham v. State, 244 So. 3d 415 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)
Authorities Cited
- Novaton v. State, 634 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 1994)
- Melvin v. State, 645 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 1994)
- Hubbard v. State, 662 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Weitz v. State, 795 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Pearson v. State, 867 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
- Farrar v. State, 42 So. 3d 265 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)