OZELL WILSON, 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.
Ozell Wilson appeals the denial of his Rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief, claiming his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to inform him of the maximum penalty he faced and advising him to reject a favorable plea offer. The court reverses the denial of one ground and remands for further proceedings.
The court holds that Wilson adequately alleged deficient performance by counsel in failing to inform him of the maximum penalty, and the postconviction court erred in finding no deficient performance alleged. The case is reversed and remanded for the postconviction court to either refute the claim with conclusive evidence or hold an evidentiary hearing.
[1] An attorney must advise a client of the statutory maximum sentence before advising the client to reject or accept a plea offer.
[2] A defendant alleging ineffective assistance of counsel based on advice to reject a plea offer must prove that counsel's performance was deficient and prejudicial.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“Wilson's allegation that counsel failed to inform him of the maximum penalty he faced if he did not prevail at trial is an allegation of deficient performance by counsel.”
Establishes that counsel's failure to inform defendant of statutory maximum penalty constitutes deficient performance under ineffective assistance standard
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilson was charged with attempted burglary, felony petit theft, and possession of burglary tools, but was tried only on the theft charge. The State of…
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 Plea Offer Advice cases and more on FLexlaw
Ozell Wilson appeals the order summarily denying his motion filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We reverse the denial of ground two but affirm the denial of Wilson’s remaining claims without comment.
Wilson was charged with attempted burglary of a structure, felony petit theft, and possession of burglary tools, but the State tried him only on the theft charge, having nolle prossed the remaining counts. The jury found Wilson guilty, and the trial court sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment.
In ground two of his rule 3.850 motion, Wilson asserted that trial counsel informed him of an offer from the State of three years’ imprisonment in exchange for his entering a plea in the case. He immediately told counsel that he would accept the offer and asked her to schedule a sentenc- . ing hearing. But counsel allegedly advised him to reject the offer because the State’s case consisted primarily of Wilson’s unrecorded post-Miranda 1 statement to law enforcement, and she was seeking to suppress it. Counsel assured Wilson he would be acquitted at trial. Wilson claimed that in advising him to reject the offer, counsel failed to tell him the statutory maximum that he faced if he went to trial and lost.
Wilson further stated in his motion that based on counsel’s advice, he rejected the offer, went to trial, and was convicted. He was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. Finally, consistent with the requirements of Alcorn v. State, 121 So.3d 419, 422 (Fla.2013), he asserted that if counsel had advised him correctly he would have accepted the State’s offer, the State would not have withdrawn the offer, the court would have accepted the offer, and his sentence would have been less severe.
In denying ground two, the postconviction court incorrectly found that Wilson did not allege any deficient performance by counsel. Wilson’s allegation that counsel failed to inform him of the maximum penalty he faced if he did not prevail at trial is an allegation of deficient performance by counsel. See id.
Accordingly, we reverse the postconviction court’s denial of ground two and remand for the court to either attach portions of the record that conclusively refute the claim or hold an evidentiary hearing.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
NORTHCUTT and SLEET, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966)
- Alcorn v. State, 121 So. 3d 419 (Fla. 2013)