Anthony M. Wait v. State of Florida
2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 2897
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Anthony M. Wait and a co-defendant were charged with firebomb-related offenses that included a mandatory 10-year minimum sentence under the principal theory; the co-defendant was tried first and acquitted, then agreed to testify against Wait.
- On the day of trial Wait rejected a favorable plea offer (no incarceration: 2 years community control + 3 years probation and an apology) and was convicted at trial of both charged crimes.
- Wait filed a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for counsel’s advice regarding the plea (failure to properly advise him to accept it and failure to explain pertinent issues like the principal theory).
- The post-conviction court held an evidentiary hearing, credited trial counsel’s testimony that she reviewed the evidence (including interrogation, co-defendant deposition, principal theory), called the plea “a good plea,” and left the decision to Wait. The court found Wait not credible.
- The trial court denied relief; the Florida appellate majority affirmed, finding counsel’s assessment that acquittal was “possible” not unreasonable and that Wait failed to demonstrate deficient performance or prejudice under Strickland (and related plea-prejudice standards). The dissent would have granted relief under Lafler/Alcorn, concluding counsel’s optimism was unreasonable given the evidence and that prejudice was established.
Issues
| Issue | Wait's Argument | State's / Counsel's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for advising/reassuring Wait about trial prospects so he rejected a favorable plea | Counsel misled Wait by saying he had a “chance” to win when, given the evidence, there was effectively no chance; counsel should have urged acceptance | Counsel fully reviewed evidence, explained principal theory and credibility issues, called the plea “good,” left decision to Wait, and told him there was only a "chance" (not a guarantee) of acquittal | Denied: court found counsel’s assessment that acquittal was “possible” was not unreasonable and credited counsel’s testimony over Wait’s |
| Whether counsel failed to inform Wait of material legal facts necessary for an informed plea decision (e.g., principal theory, mandatory minimum) | Wait: counsel omitted or underplayed key legal risks so he could not make an informed choice | Counsel: testified she reviewed discovery, interrogation, co-defendant deposition, and explained principal theory and consequences | Denied: post-conviction court found counsel adequately advised Wait and that Wait understood credibility was determinative |
| Prejudice standard for rejected plea (Lafler/Strickland framework) — would Wait have accepted plea and suffered prejudice? | Wait: would have accepted plea if properly advised; trial produced a harsher mandatory 10-year term so prejudice is established | State: Wait’s testimony that he would have accepted the plea was not credible; plea remained available and trial court would likely have accepted it, but no credible proof Wait would have taken it | Denied: court credited findings that Wait would not have accepted plea; even if performance deficient, prejudice not shown |
| Standard of review and weight of credibility findings on appeal | Wait: appellate recharacterizes trial-counsel conduct as affirmative advice to reject plea | State: factual findings and credibility determinations by post-conviction court control; appellate court should not reweigh evidence | Affirmed: appellate court defers to trial court’s credibility findings and applies Strickland standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong ineffective-assistance test)
- Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (procedural remedy framework when ineffective assistance leads a defendant to reject a plea)
- Alcorn v. State, 121 So.3d 419 (Fla. 2013) (Florida precedent on ineffective assistance when plea rejection causes harsher outcome)
- Stephens v. State, 748 So.2d 1028 (Fla. 1999) (deference to post-conviction court credibility findings)
- Blanco v. State, 702 So.2d 1250 (Fla. 1997) (appellate courts will not substitute judgment for trial court on facts/credibility)
- Cruz-Betanzos v. State, 169 So.3d 1236 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (elements required to show prejudice from rejected plea)
- Morgan v. State, 991 So.2d 835 (Fla. 2008) (discusses reasonableness of counsel’s assessment about trial success)
- Hauter v. State, 206 So.3d 839 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (ineffective-assistance claim viable where counsel’s misinformation induced rejection of plea)
- Paul v. State, 198 So.3d 999 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (ordering hearing where defendant alleged counsel failed to explain sentence exposure and case defensibility)