Smith v. State
126 So. 3d 397
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Defendant was charged with sale of cocaine and possession of cocaine in circuit court.
- On trial day he entered an open no contest plea after the state announced its intent to prove Habitual Felony Offender status.
- During plea colloquy the court advised potential habitualization consequences and confirmed awareness of maximum penalties.
- Defendant moved to withdraw his plea before sentencing after the state served its notice of intent; he was sentenced as an HFO to 25 years on the sale count and 5 years concurrent on the possession count.
- On direct appeal, defendant challenged voluntariness and timeliness of the notice; the appeal was affirmed.
- Rule 3.850 motion raised four claims including untimeliness, ineffective assistance for failure to object, and ineffective assistance regarding gain-time implications; circuit court denied summarily.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claims are procedurally barred and substantively meritless | Smith argues first two claims were not barred and are meritorious | Smith contends untimeliness and involuntariness based on notice timing | Claims facially invalid; procedurally barred; no relief on merits |
| Whether the notice of intent was untimely | Smith asserts untimely notice after plea paperwork | Smith maintains timing violated procedural rules | Notice timely; not a basis for relief |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to object to untimely notice | Smith claims trial counsel ineffective | Smith contends counsel failed to object | Claim barred; even if considered, merit lacking |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for advising about gain-time implications as an HFO | Smith argues misadvisement about gain-time eligibility | Smith contends counsel should have warned about loss of basic gain time | No error; gain-time rules changed; collateral consequence; no ineffective assistance |
Key Cases Cited
- Freeman v. State, 761 So.2d 1055 (Fla.2000) (claims raised on direct appeal are procedurally barred in 3.850 proceedings)
- Harden v. State, 453 So.2d 550 (Fla.4th DCA 1984) (formal acceptance of a plea occurs in open court for the record)
- Ashley v. State, 614 So.2d 486 (Fla.1993) (pre-plea regime required notice and court confirmation of habitualization)
- Barrs v. State, 883 So.2d 846 (Fla.1st DCA 2004) (elimination of basic gain time nullifies Ashley requirement)
- Ferguson v. State, 677 So.2d 968 (Fla.3d DCA 1996) (subsequent treatment of gain time after 1993 changes)
- Reed v. State, 687 So.2d 77 (Fla.4th DCA 1997) (followed Ferguson on gain-time advisement)
- Williams v. State, 2 So.3d 1089 (Fla.5th DCA 2009) (conflicts over advising gain-time consequences for habitual offenses)
- Murphy v. State, 952 So.2d 1215 (Fla.5th DCA 2007) (gain-time advisement for habitual offenders discussed in conflict)
- Parker v. State, 808 So.2d 264 (Fla.2d DCA 2002) (plea validity and advisement considerations in habitualization context)