Hope v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hope v. State

148 So. 3d 130, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 15122, 2014 WL 4802036

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 29, 2014

DocketNo. 1D14-1430

StatusPublished

This text of 148 So. 3d 130 (Hope v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hope v. State, 148 So. 3d 130, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 15122, 2014 WL 4802036 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Aaron Hope appeals a final order summarily denying his sworn motion for post-conviction relief. As to Hope’s eleven issues on appeal, we affirm without discussion the denial of the claims that gave rise to appellate Issues Two through Five and Seven through Eleven., We issued an order pursuant to Toler v. State, 493 So.2d 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), directing the State to show cause why the claims raised in appellate Issues One and Six should not be remanded to the post-conviction court for an evidentiary hearing, and affording Hope an opportunity to reply to the State’s response. Having reviewed the response and reply relating to the “jury instruction” claim raised in appellate Issue Six, we affirm the denial of relief on that issue. Agreeing with the State’s concession of error in the post-conviction court’s summary denial of appellate Issue One, we reverse that part of the order and remand for an evidentiary hearing on that issue only.

Appellate Issue One, which arose from Ground One in the Rule 3.850 motion, dealt with the claim of ineffective assistance based on trial counsel’s failure (1) to promptly ascertain Hope’s wish to accept the State’s seven-year plea offer and (2) to convey Hope’s decision to the prosecutor before the offer expired. Given the record evidence that Hope was sentenced to more than seven years’ incarceration, the State recognizes that the post-conviction court’s order and attachments did not conclusively refute the possibility that trial counsel performed deficiently, resulting in prejudice [131]*131to the defense. Cf White v. State, 731 So.2d 74, 75 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (reversing and remanding for reconsideration of post-conviction claim that trial counsel was ineffective for the delay in communicating to the State the defendant’s acceptance of the State’s 52-month plea offer until after the State withdrew its offer, where the defendant alleged he would have received a less severe sentence than the one imposed after the trial).

The final order is AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for an evidentiary hearing as to appellate Issue One only.

THOMAS, RAY, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Aaron Hope appeals a final order summarily denying his sworn motion for post-conviction relief. As to Hope’s eleven issues on appeal, we affirm without discussion the denial of the claims that gave rise to appellate Issues Two through Five and Seven through Eleven., We issued an order pursuant to Toler v. State, 493 So.2d 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), directing the State to show cause why the claims raised in appellate Issues One and Six should not be remanded to the post-conviction court for an evidentiary hearing, and affording Hope an opportunity to reply to the State’s response. Having reviewed the response and reply relating to the “jury instruction” claim raised in appellate Issue Six, we affirm the denial of relief on that issue. Agreeing with the State’s concession of error in the post-conviction court’s summary denial of appellate Issue One, we reverse that part of the order and remand for an evidentiary hearing on that issue only.

Appellate Issue One, which arose from Ground One in the Rule 3.850 motion, dealt with the claim of ineffective assistance based on trial counsel’s failure (1) to promptly ascertain Hope’s wish to accept the State’s seven-year plea offer and (2) to convey Hope’s decision to the prosecutor before the offer expired. Given the record evidence that Hope was sentenced to more than seven years’ incarceration, the State recognizes that the post-conviction court’s order and attachments did not conclusively refute the possibility that trial counsel performed deficiently, resulting in prejudice [131]*131to the defense. Cf White v. State, 731 So.2d 74, 75 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (reversing and remanding for reconsideration of post-conviction claim that trial counsel was ineffective for the delay in communicating to the State the defendant’s acceptance of the State’s 52-month plea offer until after the State withdrew its offer, where the defendant alleged he would have received a less severe sentence than the one imposed after the trial).

The final order is AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for an evidentiary hearing as to appellate Issue One only.

THOMAS, RAY, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

148 So. 3d 130, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 15122, 2014 WL 4802036, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hope-v-state-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack