Max Magic Guzman-Aviles v. State
226 So. 3d 339
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017

Background

  • Guzman-Aviles was charged with armed robbery with a firearm (life max) and fleeing or eluding a police officer (5 years max).
  • He pled no contest pursuant to a negotiated agreement, receiving a 10-year mandatory minimum for armed robbery, five years’ probation, and a concurrent five-year term for eluding.
  • Guzman-Aviles filed a facially sufficient Rule 3.850 postconviction motion asserting ineffective assistance for failing to file motions to suppress the gun and the victim’s out-of-court identification.
  • The postconviction court denied grounds 1–2, 5 (ineffective assistance for suppression), and 3, 4, 6 (other grounds) summarily, relying on preclusion of collateral challenges after a plea.
  • The appellate court affirmed the denials, but disagreed that the plea alone barred postconviction relief and applied the tipsy coachman rule to uphold the result.
  • Key factual basis included: the gun recovered along Guzman-Aviles’ chase route; eyewitness identification of Guzman-Aviles at the arrest site; and the plea colloquy outlining maximums and rights waived.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether plea precludes suppression challenges Guzman-Aviles argues ineffective assistance for failing to file suppression motions and that the plea should not bar these claims. State contends the plea precludes suppression challenges and collateral attacks on the plea. Not per se precluded; plea alone does not bar relief where counsel’s failure to pursue suppression is claimed.
Standard for ineffective assistance where plea is entered Guzman-Aviles claims deficient performance and prejudice; but the record shows potential suppressible evidence. State maintains traditional Strickland/Hill test applies; no prejudice shown under totality of circumstances. No reasonable probability of trial would have occurred; no prejudice shown under totality of circumstances.
Whether suppression of gun or identification would have altered outcome Suppression of the firearm and show-up identification would have undermined the State’s case. Even if suppressed, eyewitness possession and show-up procedure do not preclude prosecution;割 The likelihood of suppression would not have changed outcome; sentence under plea was favorable and identification/gun suppression unlikely to preclude conviction.

Key Cases Cited

  • Parker v. State, 603 So.2d 616 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (plea preclusion on appeal from suppression challenges)
  • Stano v. State, 520 So.2d 278 (Fla. 1988) (claims of ineffective assistance tied to plea context)
  • Henry v. State, 679 So.2d 885 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (limits of plea-related postconviction challenges)
  • Hampton v. State, 217 So.3d 1096 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) (postconviction court error in treating no-contest plea as precluding suppression claims)
  • MacKinnon v. State, 39 So.3d 537 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (facial sufficiency of counsel’s ineffective assistance claim)
  • Grosvenor v. State, 874 So.2d 1176 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (two-prong Strickland test for plea-related claims in postconviction)
  • Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (ineffective assistance standard for guilty/no-contest pleas)
  • Capalbo v. State, 73 So.3d 838 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (totality of circumstances in evaluating insistence on trial)
  • Robinson v. State, 972 So.2d 1115 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (probable cause/credibility in suppression analysis)
  • Akins v. State, 838 So.2d 637 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (eyewitness possession sufficiency without weapon introduction)
  • Fletcher v. State, 472 So.2d 537 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985) (evidence admissibility not fatal if weapon not introduced)
  • Jackson v. State, 744 So.2d 545 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (factors for misidentification likelihood)
  • Perez v. State, 648 So.2d 715 (Fla. 1995) (show-up evaluation factors for identification reliability)
  • Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972) (factors for determining reliability of eyewitness identification)
  • Blanco v. State, 452 So.2d 520 (Fla. 1984) (timing of identification affects reliability)
  • Zanchez v. State, 84 So.3d 466 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (plea colloquy does not automatically refute suppression claims)
  • Puglisi v. State, 112 So.3d 1196 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (sufficiency of record in refuting suppression claims)
Read the full case