Alcorn v. State
121 So. 3d 419
| Fla. | 2013Background
- Alcorn faced ineffective assistance claims for misinforming him of the maximum penalty before rejecting a plea offer.
- He qualified as an habitual felony offender (HFO), making the maximum for Count I life imprisonment, not the thirty years he was told.
- Before trial, both defense counsel and the State mistakenly believed Alcorn did not qualify for HFO, leading to a twelve-year plea offer based on that mistaken belief.
- Alcorn rejected the twelve-year offer and proceeded to trial; the State later sought HFO enhancement and imposed a 30-year sentence for Count I and five years for Count II, to run concurrently.
- Postconviction relief was denied by the trial court; the Fourth District held no prejudice because the ultimate sentence matched the incorrectly communicated maximum.
- The Florida Supreme Court recedes from prior prejudice standards, adopts Frye/Lafler four-part prejudice test, and remands for further proceedings on prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What prejudice standard applies when misadvice affects a plea | Alcorn argues Frye/Lafler require showing a reasonable probability of a better outcome with correct advice. | State contends the existing Cottle/Morgan framework suffices for prejudice. | Adopt Frye/Lafler four-part standard; recede from Cottle/Morgan. |
| Prejudice analysis in light of HFO misadvice | Alcorn would have accepted the twelve-year offer if correctly informed of life exposure. | Prejudice shown only if outcome would be more favorable under the offer as a whole. | Prejudice exists if a reasonable probability the end result would be more favorable under the plea. |
| Effect of conflicting district decisions on prejudice | Lower courts erred by requiring no showing that the court would have accepted the plea. | Some districts followed Cottle/Morgan rules. | Disapprove Lewis and Revell; align with Frye/Lafler; quash Fourth District. |
Key Cases Cited
- Frye v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 1399 (U.S. 2012) (plea-bargaining is a critical stage; defendant must show reasonable probability of favorable outcome with correct advice)
- Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376 (U.S. 2012) (remedy may require reoffering plea; prejudice requires a different outcome with competent advice)
- Cottle v. State, 733 So.2d 963 (Fla.1999) (adopted modified Strickland for plea-stage with three elements)
- Morgan v. State, 991 So.2d 835 (Fla.2008) (reaffirmed modified plea-stage Strickland test)
- Revell v. State, 989 So.2d 751 (Fla.2008) (prejudice from misadvice analyzed under pre-Frye framework)
- Lewis v. State, 751 So.2d 715 (Fla.5th DCA 2000) (requires informed decision; prejudice based on missing maximum exposure guidance)
- Rollman v. State, 887 So.2d 1233 (Fla.2004) (trial court may alter plea up to sentencing)