Campbell v. State
139 So. 3d 490
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Campbell entered open no-contest pleas to sale and possession of a controlled substance and was sentenced as a Habitual Felony Offender (HFO): 15 years (sale) concurrent with 5 years (possession).
- He filed a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion alleging multiple instances of ineffective assistance of counsel and involuntary plea defects (plea colloquy failures, misadvice about maximum/HFO exposure, plea negotiations, and a failure to file a suppression motion).
- The postconviction court summarily denied relief but failed to address several specific claims or provide record support for summary denial.
- The appellate court reviewed whether the 3.850 claims were facially sufficient, whether attachments conclusively refuted them, and whether an evidentiary hearing was required.
- The court affirmed denial of the claim about failure to file a suppression motion (ground six) because the K-9 alert provided probable cause post-Harris; it reversed other denials and remanded to allow amendment or an evidentiary hearing and directed correction of any inconsistency between oral pronouncement and written judgment regarding HFO sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Campbell) | Defendant's Argument (State/Postconviction Ct./Defense) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plea colloquy/waiver form compliance (failure to confirm defendant read/understood waiver) | Plea involuntary because court did not determine if form was read/explained or if Campbell could understand it | Waiver form and signed acknowledgements show awareness of rights | Remanded: claim not addressed below; Campbell given 60 days to amend to plead prejudice under rule 3.172(j) |
| Counsel failed to advise right to confront witnesses and appeal-related rights | Counsel did not inform Campbell he waived confrontation and appellate review; he would have insisted on trial | Postconviction court relied on signed waiver form to refute claim | Remanded: facially insufficient as pleaded (no prejudice alleged); allowed 60 days to amend |
| Court failed to advise maximum possible sentence (including HFO exposure) | Had he known true maximum he would have gone to trial | Postconviction court relied on waiver form stating max exposure | Reversed and remanded: claim facially sufficient; attachments do not conclusively refute — evidentiary hearing or record attachments required |
| Failure to advise consequences of HFO designation and written judgment inconsistency | Plea/involuntariness because not told HFO max and effect on early-release eligibility; written judgment omits oral HFO pronouncement | Postconviction court found court informed him and counsel agreed to priors | Remanded: claim must be amended to allege prejudice; court must address and correct written judgment to match oral pronouncement if inconsistent |
| Ineffective assistance in plea negotiations (failure to convey/properly advise about plea offers and HFO exposure) | Counsel misled him about maximum exposure (told 5 years) and failed to convey State offers; would have accepted earlier offers | Postconviction court relied on counsel’s plea-hearing statements that other offers were denied | Reversed and remanded: record unclear whether State offers were withheld; postconviction court must fully address claim and attach record or hold hearing |
| Failure to file motion to suppress vehicle search (K-9 alert) | Search illegal under Gant; dog alert unreliable absent dog’s track record; counsel ineffective for not moving to suppress | Postconviction court: claim waived by plea or attacks sufficiency of evidence; appellate court: K-9 alert provided probable cause under Harris | Affirmed denial: counsel not ineffective because K-9 alert furnished probable cause and a motion to suppress would likely fail |
Key Cases Cited
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (establishes Strickland standard applied to plea-stage ineffective assistance)
- Missouri v. Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399 (standards for prejudice from rejection of plea offers)
- Florida v. Harris, 133 S. Ct. 1050 (detection-dog alerts assessed under common-sense probable-cause inquiry)
- Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 754 (requirement to allow amendment of facially insufficient 3.850 claims in good faith)
- Townsend v. State, 927 So.2d 1064 (trial court must orally verify defendant has intelligently considered written plea-rights form)
- Koenig v. State, 597 So.2d 256 (plea colloquy demands utmost solicitude to ensure understanding)
- Ashley v. State, 614 So.2d 486 (court should confirm defendant’s awareness of habitualization consequences)
- Alcorn v. State, 121 So.3d 419 (framework for prejudice when plea offers are rejected due to counsel error)
- Spencer v. State, 889 So.2d 868 (ineffective assistance for failing to file suppression motion survives entry of plea)