Pritchard v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Pritchard v. State

728 So. 2d 1196, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 2521, 1999 WL 123599

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 10, 1999

DocketNo. 98-3740

StatusPublished

This text of 728 So. 2d 1196 (Pritchard 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

Pritchard v. State, 728 So. 2d 1196, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 2521, 1999 WL 123599 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse an order summarily denying post-conviction relief and remand for an evidentiary hearing. Appellant asserts that he was advised by counsel that the trial court could depart downward from a guideline sentence on the basis of “mercy,” patently not a valid basis for departure.

We note that the record reflects that the court considered all mitigating factors raised in the PSI and at sentencing (in accordance with the plea agreement that a PSI would be prepared and the court could impose sentence above the guidelines based on what the court heard by way of aggravation or below the guidelines “if I hear something by way of mitigating circumstances that would persuade me that there are reasons to go below the minimum sentence”). We also recognize that even if Appellant can demonstrate that counsel advised him that “mercy” was a reason for a trial court’s imposing a sentence below the guidelines, any prejudice might be speculative if the court considered all mitigating factors addressed by the PSI and the defense, regardless of whether they would constitute valid grounds for deviating, as the state made no objection to any mitigating factors raised. Nevertheless, the sentencing transcript reflects that the court specifically determined that it had no authority to depart from the guidelines without valid reasons for departure, and found no reason to do so. As a result, the court imposed the recommended guideline sentence. Therefore, we cannot resolve on this record that Appellant was not prejudiced by mis-advice of counsel.

STONE, C.J., WARNER and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We reverse an order summarily denying post-conviction relief and remand for an evidentiary hearing. Appellant asserts that he was advised by counsel that the trial court could depart downward from a guideline sentence on the basis of “mercy,” patently not a valid basis for departure.

We note that the record reflects that the court considered all mitigating factors raised in the PSI and at sentencing (in accordance with the plea agreement that a PSI would be prepared and the court could impose sentence above the guidelines based on what the court heard by way of aggravation or below the guidelines “if I hear something by way of mitigating circumstances that would persuade me that there are reasons to go below the minimum sentence”). We also recognize that even if Appellant can demonstrate that counsel advised him that “mercy” was a reason for a trial court’s imposing a sentence below the guidelines, any prejudice might be speculative if the court considered all mitigating factors addressed by the PSI and the defense, regardless of whether they would constitute valid grounds for deviating, as the state made no objection to any mitigating factors raised. Nevertheless, the sentencing transcript reflects that the court specifically determined that it had no authority to depart from the guidelines without valid reasons for departure, and found no reason to do so. As a result, the court imposed the recommended guideline sentence. Therefore, we cannot resolve on this record that Appellant was not prejudiced by mis-advice of counsel.

STONE, C.J., WARNER and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

728 So. 2d 1196, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 2521, 1999 WL 123599, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pritchard-v-state-fladistctapp-1999.