Odegaard v. State
2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 4637
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2014Background
- In 2008 Odegaard pled guilty to theft-related offenses; court imposed youthful offender sentence: 2 years' community control, then 4 years' probation.
- In 2009 Odegaard violated community control by committing armed robbery; state offered 15 years' prison plus 5 years' probation; warned of possible life with 10-year minimum if not accepted.
- Counsel advised open plea to seek bottom of guidelines; Odegaard pleaded open but received 30 years for armed robbery plus 15 years for underlying offenses, consecutive.
- Odegaard unsuccessfully moved to reduce sentence; direct appeal affirmed convictions and sentences.
- Post-conviction motion alleged ineffective assistance for misadvising him to reject the offer and for failing to warn of up to 45-year exposure.
- Postconviction court credited counsel and found no deficiency; record showed him warned of 15 and 30-year maxima but not 45-year total.
- Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to adjudicate prejudice due to failure to inform about consecutive sentencing and 45-year exposure.
- Remand may require resentence with youthful offender designation maintained; defendant may pursue correction of youth designation if not withdrawing plea.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did counsel's failure to warn about 45-year exposure constitute deficient performance? | Odegaard | Odegaard | Yes; deficient performance found |
| Whether the deficiency prejudiced Odegaard under Strickland after Lafler/Frye/Alcorn guidance? | Odegaard | State | Remanded to assess prejudice on remand |
| Should Alcorn/Lafler/Frye pipeline considerations affect prejudice analysis on remand? | Odegaard | State | Alcorn applied; prejudice framework adjusted for remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (deficient performance plus prejudice required)
- Murphy v. State, 868 So.2d 585 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (plea consequences must be understood)
- Partlow v. State, 840 So.2d 1040 (Fla. 2003) (maximum penalties discussed in plea context)
- Watrous v. State, 793 So.2d 6 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (plea advisement and sentencing consequences considerations)
- Cottle v. State, 733 So.2d 963 (Fla. 1999) (three-part test for ineffectiveness based on plea advisement)
- Morgan v. State, 991 So.2d 835 (Fla. 2008) (adopts Cottle three-part test for plea-stage claims)
- Beasley v. State, 964 So.2d 213 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (relevance of consequences not communicated yet)
- Alcorn v. State, 121 So.3d 419 (Fla. 2013) (expands prejudice inquiry under Lafler/Frye)
- Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376 (U.S. 2012) (enhanced prejudice framework when rejecting plea offers)
- Frye v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 1399 (U.S. 2012) (prejudice requires showing probability of favorable outcome)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (U.S. 2010) (new law affecting plea advisement may apply)
- Castaño v. State, 119 So.3d 1208 (Fla. 2012) (pipeline doctrine in postconviction contexts)