Stanley Peng v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Stanley Peng v. State

202 So. 3d 459, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 16047

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 28, 2016

Docket5D16-1480

StatusPublished

This text of 202 So. 3d 459 (Stanley Peng 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

Stanley Peng v. State, 202 So. 3d 459, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 16047 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

EVANDER, J.

Stanley Peng appeals the summary denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for postconviction relief. We find merit to one of the two issues raised on appeal.

After the entry of a no contest plea, Peng was convicted of traveling to meet a minor for unlawful sexual activity *460 in violation of section 847.0135(4), Florida Statutes (2010). As a consequence ° of his conviction, he was designated a sexual offender. In his postconviction motion, Peng claimed that his trial counsel affirmatively misadvised him that designation as a sexual offender, rather than as a sexual predator, would preclude his photograph from being posted on the Florida Department of Law Enforcement’s website. He further averred that but for this misadvice, he would have proceeded to trial.

Although counsel is generally not required to advise a defendant of the collateral consequences of a plea, affirmative misadvice regarding collateral consequences may provide a basis for postcon-viction relief. See, e.g., Deck v. State, 985 So.2d 1234, 1236 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (holding that defendant’s allegation in postcon-viction relief motion that trial counsel affirmatively misadvised him of collateral consequences of his plea presented facially sufficient claim for postconviction relief; defendant’s motion alleged that, but for the misadvice, defendant would not have entered plea). Furthermore, a defendant’s reliance on trial counsel’s mistaken assurances that a conviction would not cause the defendant’s photograph to be placed on the Internet has been found to establish good cause for the withdrawal of a plea. See Graham v. State, 779 So.2d 604, 605 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). On remand, the trial court must either attach records conclusively refuting this claim or hold an evidentiary hearing.

We find the other issue raised by Peng to be without merit.

AFFIRMED, in part; REVERSED, in part; REMANDED.

BERGER and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.

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

EVANDER, J.

Stanley Peng appeals the summary denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for postconviction relief. We find merit to one of the two issues raised on appeal.

After the entry of a no contest plea, Peng was convicted of traveling to meet a minor for unlawful sexual activity *460 in violation of section 847.0135(4), Florida Statutes (2010). As a consequence ° of his conviction, he was designated a sexual offender. In his postconviction motion, Peng claimed that his trial counsel affirmatively misadvised him that designation as a sexual offender, rather than as a sexual predator, would preclude his photograph from being posted on the Florida Department of Law Enforcement’s website. He further averred that but for this misadvice, he would have proceeded to trial.

Although counsel is generally not required to advise a defendant of the collateral consequences of a plea, affirmative misadvice regarding collateral consequences may provide a basis for postcon-viction relief. See, e.g., Deck v. State, 985 So.2d 1234, 1236 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (holding that defendant’s allegation in postcon-viction relief motion that trial counsel affirmatively misadvised him of collateral consequences of his plea presented facially sufficient claim for postconviction relief; defendant’s motion alleged that, but for the misadvice, defendant would not have entered plea). Furthermore, a defendant’s reliance on trial counsel’s mistaken assurances that a conviction would not cause the defendant’s photograph to be placed on the Internet has been found to establish good cause for the withdrawal of a plea. See Graham v. State, 779 So.2d 604, 605 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). On remand, the trial court must either attach records conclusively refuting this claim or hold an evidentiary hearing.

We find the other issue raised by Peng to be without merit.

AFFIRMED, in part; REVERSED, in part; REMANDED.

BERGER and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 So. 3d 459, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 16047, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stanley-peng-v-state-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack