Parhm v. State
227 So. 3d 172
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Keith B. Parhm pleaded no contest in 2008 to racketeering (RICO) and conspiracy to commit racketeering as part of a cooperation plea; sentencing was deferred but later resulted in concurrent 30-year terms in 2009.
- Parhm appealed his conviction and sentence; this court previously affirmed.
- In March 2014 Parhm filed a third amended Rule 3.850 postconviction motion raising six grounds, including ineffective assistance for failure to advise on elements and defenses (Claim 1).
- The postconviction court summarily denied all claims in June 2016; Parhm appealed, challenging the denial of the first four claims.
- The Second District affirmed denial of all claims except Claim 1, which it found not conclusively refuted by the record and remanded for attachment of record support or an evidentiary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to advise Parhm of the elements of RICO and related defenses | Parhm: counsel did not explain RICO elements (including requirement that predicate acts be related) or that conspiracy required specific intent; had he been advised he would have gone to trial | State: plea colloquy (prosecutor's factual basis and Parhm's lack of objection) conclusively refutes the claim | Court: Reversed summary denial; record does not conclusively refute claim—remand for record attachments or evidentiary hearing |
| Whether brief recitation of facts by prosecutor at plea hearing can substitute for attorney advice on complex charges | Parhm: such recitation is insufficient to show he received competent advice about elements/defenses | State: relied on prosecutor’s recitation and Parhm’s “no” to objections at plea colloquy | Court: Prosecutor’s recital is insufficient, especially for complex RICO charges; counsel’s advice is required |
| Whether counsel failed to advise Parhm of specific defenses (e.g., isolated incidents, lack of intent) | Parhm: counsel did not inform him of potential defenses like lack of intent or that predicates were isolated | State: plea colloquy refutes lack of understanding/awareness | Court: Record does not conclusively refute failure-to-advise-defense claim; remand required |
| Whether other postconviction claims warranted relief | Parhm: also asserted plea involuntariness, vindictive sentencing, RICO unconstitutionality, cumulative error | State: trial court summarily denied these claims as meritless | Court: Affirmed denial of all claims except Claim 1 |
Key Cases Cited
- Parhm v. State, 44 So. 3d 589 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (prior appeal affirming judgment and sentence)
- Hagopian v. Justice Admin. Comm'n, 18 So. 3d 625 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (discussing complexity of RICO prosecutions and defenses)
- Jones v. State, 846 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (record must conclusively refute claim counsel failed to advise of specific defense)
- Flores v. State, 662 So. 2d 1350 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (same standard for summary denials)
- Fernandez v. State, 135 So. 3d 446 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (reversing summary denial where counsel’s failure to advise of a defense was not conclusively refuted)