Jamarl W. Vaughn v. State of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Jamarl W. Vaughn v. State of Florida

159 So. 3d 298

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 4, 2015

Docket1D14-4269

StatusPublished

This text of 159 So. 3d 298 (Jamarl W. Vaughn v. State of Florida) 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

Jamarl W. Vaughn v. State of Florida, 159 So. 3d 298 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Jamarl W. Vaughn appeals the summary denial of his motion seeking postconviction relief brought pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm, without comment, the postconviction court’s denial of the appellant’s second, third, and fourth grounds for relief. However, we reverse for further proceedings as to the first ground.

In the Appellant’s first claim for relief, he argued that his attorney failed to convey a favorable plea offer that was extended by the State in 2009. The trial court denied this claim, finding it incredible be *299 cause it did not specifically describe the sentence contemplated by the offer and concluding that the claim was also refuted by the record. While the transcripts attached to the trial court’s order confirm that defense counsel informed the trial court just prior to trial that the State made a plea offer in 2009, there is no indication that this offer had been conveyed to the Appellant.

A claim that counsel performed defi-ciently in failing to convey a plea offer is cognizable in a postconviction motion. See Morgan v. State, 991 So.2d 835, 839-40 (Fla.2008), receded from on other grounds by Alcorn v. State, 121 So.3d 419, 433 (Fla.2013). Further, while Appellant’s claim regarding the plea offer lacks specific details and fails to properly allege prejudice, this should be resolved by offering him an opportunity to amend rather than denying his unrefuted claim on the merits. See Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 754, 761-62 (Fla.2007) (concluding that a defendant should be entitled to at least one opportunity to amend a facially insufficient and unrefuted postconviction claim); Harrell v. State, 21 So.3d 166, 169 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (concluding that the denial of a facially insufficient claim that was not conclusively refuted by the record should be reversed and remanded to provide the appellant with an opportunity to amend).

Accordingly, we reverse thé trial court’s summary denial of ground one and remand for further proceedings.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.

LEWIS, C.J., and BENTON, J., concur; THOMAS, J., Dissents Without Opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

Jamarl W. Vaughn appeals the summary denial of his motion seeking postconviction relief brought pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm, without comment, the postconviction court’s denial of the appellant’s second, third, and fourth grounds for relief. However, we reverse for further proceedings as to the first ground.

In the Appellant’s first claim for relief, he argued that his attorney failed to convey a favorable plea offer that was extended by the State in 2009. The trial court denied this claim, finding it incredible be *299 cause it did not specifically describe the sentence contemplated by the offer and concluding that the claim was also refuted by the record. While the transcripts attached to the trial court’s order confirm that defense counsel informed the trial court just prior to trial that the State made a plea offer in 2009, there is no indication that this offer had been conveyed to the Appellant.

A claim that counsel performed defi-ciently in failing to convey a plea offer is cognizable in a postconviction motion. See Morgan v. State, 991 So.2d 835, 839-40 (Fla.2008), receded from on other grounds by Alcorn v. State, 121 So.3d 419, 433 (Fla.2013). Further, while Appellant’s claim regarding the plea offer lacks specific details and fails to properly allege prejudice, this should be resolved by offering him an opportunity to amend rather than denying his unrefuted claim on the merits. See Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 754, 761-62 (Fla.2007) (concluding that a defendant should be entitled to at least one opportunity to amend a facially insufficient and unrefuted postconviction claim); Harrell v. State, 21 So.3d 166, 169 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (concluding that the denial of a facially insufficient claim that was not conclusively refuted by the record should be reversed and remanded to provide the appellant with an opportunity to amend).

Accordingly, we reverse thé trial court’s summary denial of ground one and remand for further proceedings.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.

LEWIS, C.J., and BENTON, J., concur; THOMAS, J., Dissents Without Opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

159 So. 3d 298, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jamarl-w-vaughn-v-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack