HEATHER PHILLIPS v. STATE OF FLORIDA
225 So. 3d 269
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Heather Phillips was charged with four counts of lewd or lascivious battery on a 15-year-old; the State offered to dismiss three counts in exchange for a no-contest plea to one count.
- The written plea stated the recommendation was a "10 year DOC Cap agreement" plus costs and fees.
- At plea colloquy the court asked if Phillips understood the ten-year "cap," explained the cap could include a split between prison and probation, and Phillips said she understood and wished to plead.
- At sentencing the court imposed ten years in prison followed by five years of sex-offender probation.
- Phillips appealed, claiming counsel was ineffective for not objecting to the sentence (arguing she understood ten years total, not ten years prison plus probation) and for failing to move to withdraw the plea.
- The Fourth DCA affirmed, holding ineffective assistance was not shown on the face of the record and noting counsel may have made a strategic choice to accept a favorable negotiated result rather than risk withdrawal and a much longer exposure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not objecting to a sentence that exceeded the parties' agreement | Phillips: she understood the agreement as 10 total years; counsel should have objected when court imposed 10 years prison + 5 years probation | State: court explained the "10 year cap" could include probation; counsel may have had tactical reasons not to object | Court: No ineffective assistance apparent on face of record; counsel may have made a reasonable strategic choice |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to move to withdraw the plea under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.170(l) | Phillips: counsel should have filed to withdraw the plea after the allegedly greater-than-agreed sentence | State: counsel may have declined for strategic reasons to avoid plea withdrawal and greater exposure | Court: Not ineffective on face of record; claim better raised in a 3.850 motion |
| Whether the record shows the plea agreement was ambiguous about the meaning of the "10 year cap" | Phillips: written plea ambiguous, she understood ten years total | State: court clarified at colloquy that cap could include probation; Phillips acknowledged understanding | Court: Record shows possible ambiguity, but court’s colloquy informed defendant that probation could be included |
| Appropriate procedural vehicle for ineffective-assistance claim | Phillips: raised on direct appeal | State: such claims are typically litigated in post-conviction (3.850) proceedings | Court: Affirmed on direct appeal but without prejudice to raising claims in a 3.850 motion |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Michel v. State, 989 So. 2d 679 (ineffective-assistance claims ordinarily raised in 3.850 but can be decided on the record if apparent)
- McClough v. State, 74 So. 3d 158 (counsel not ineffective for silence where tactical reasons could explain foregoing objection to sentence exceeding negotiated cap)
- Hannon v. State, 941 So. 2d 1109 (strong presumption that counsel's strategic choices are reasonable)