Phillip Mitchell v. State of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Phillip Mitchell v. State of Florida

165 So. 3d 748, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 7639, 2015 WL 2393348

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 20, 2015

Docket4D14-4164

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 165 So. 3d 748 (Phillip Mitchell 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

Phillip Mitchell v. State of Florida, 165 So. 3d 748, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 7639, 2015 WL 2393348 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals from the circuit court’s summary denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion. We reverse and remand to allow the defendant an opportunity to amend one claim pursuant to Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 754 (Fla.2007), and Alcorn v. State, 121 So.3d 419 (Fla.2013). Counsel may be ineffective for failing to advise a defendant about the maximum possible penalty when conveying a plea offer. Alcorn, 121 So.3d at 426; George v. State, 132 So.3d 366 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). While the defendant alleges that counsel failed to advise him of potential habitual offender sentencing before he rejected a favorable plea, his motion did not comport with Alcorn’s requirements. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to allow the defendant the opportunity and a reasonable amount of time to correct the pleading deficiency associated with that claim if he can do so in good faith. We affirm the summary denial of appellant’s other claim.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.

MAY, GERBER and LEVINE, JJ„ concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals from the circuit court’s summary denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion. We reverse and remand to allow the defendant an opportunity to amend one claim pursuant to Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 754 (Fla.2007), and Alcorn v. State, 121 So.3d 419 (Fla.2013). Counsel may be ineffective for failing to advise a defendant about the maximum possible penalty when conveying a plea offer. Alcorn, 121 So.3d at 426; George v. State, 132 So.3d 366 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). While the defendant alleges that counsel failed to advise him of potential habitual offender sentencing before he rejected a favorable plea, his motion did not comport with Alcorn’s requirements. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to allow the defendant the opportunity and a reasonable amount of time to correct the pleading deficiency associated with that claim if he can do so in good faith. We affirm the summary denial of appellant’s other claim.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.

MAY, GERBER and LEVINE, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

165 So. 3d 748, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 7639, 2015 WL 2393348, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/phillip-mitchell-v-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack