Timothy Hampton v. State
217 So. 3d 1096
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Timothy Hampton pleaded no contest to multiple drug felonies, evidence tampering, and resisting an officer; later filed a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion arguing ineffective assistance of counsel and involuntary pleas.
- Ground One: Hampton alleged counsel failed to move to quash a wiretap order based on an insufficient probable cause affidavit, and that a successful challenge would have altered his decision to plead.
- Ground Two B: Hampton alleged his plea was involuntary because he was not properly advised about the consequences of habitual felony offender (HFO) designation on early release/gain time eligibility.
- The postconviction court summarily denied Grounds One and Two (in part); held an evidentiary hearing on Ground Three and denied relief; Hampton appealed.
- The Fifth District reversed and remanded on Ground One for further proceedings (court must attach records refuting the claim or hold an evidentiary hearing) and affirmed denial as to Ground Two B and other parts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plea-waiver bars ineffective-assistance claim for failing to challenge a wiretap order | Hampton: plea does not waive claim that counsel failed to file suppression motion; relief available under 3.850 | State: plea precludes attack on admissibility of evidence | Court: Reversed summary denial; plea does not automatically bar ineffective-assistance claim alleging failure to move to suppress—remand for records or hearing |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to move to quash the wiretap order | Hampton: a successful motion would have weakened State's case and he would not have pleaded | State: record (not before court) may show motions were filed or no prejudice | Court: Could not determine from record; remanded for factfinding |
| Whether failure to advise on HFO consequences (gain time/early release) rendered plea involuntary | Hampton: was not informed of how HFO affects early release/gain time, so plea involuntary | State: written notice of intent to habitualize was provided; post-Ashley statutory changes limited need to discuss gain time | Court: Affirmed; no prejudice shown and legislative changes eliminated Ashley-based gain-time advisals in plea colloquies |
| Whether prior Fifth DCA decisions requiring Ashley-style gain-time advisals remain good law | Hampton: N/A (issue considered sua sponte) | State: N/A | Court: Receded from Williams and Murphy to the extent they require Ashley-based gain-time advisals; certified conflict with several Second DCA cases |
Key Cases Cited
- Spencer v. State, 889 So. 2d 868 (3rd DCA) (ineffective-assistance claim for failure to file suppression motion is cognizable after a plea)
- MacKinnon v. State, 39 So. 3d 537 (Fla. 5th DCA) (same principle that suppression-based ineffective-assistance claims survive a plea)
- Ashley v. State, 614 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 1993) (requirement of written notice of intent to habitualize and court confirmation defendant understands reasonable consequences)
- Barrs v. State, 883 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 1st DCA) (post-legislative change analysis on gain time and Ashley advisals)
- Smith v. State, 126 So. 3d 397 (Fla. 4th DCA) (holding post-1994 legislation nullified Ashley’s gain-time advisal requirement)
- Major v. State, 814 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 2002) (defining direct consequences of a plea)
- State v. Thompson, 735 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 1999) (voluntariness of plea reviewable in postconviction proceedings)
- Evans v. Singletary, 737 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 1999) (conditional release and post-release supervision distinctions)
- Simmons v. State, 611 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. 2d DCA) (collateral consequences need not be detailed at plea)
- Rodriguez v. State, 990 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 3d DCA) (gain time and related credits characterized as collateral consequences)
- Henderson v. State, 626 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 3d DCA) (no requirement to warn of every possible ramification of gain time)
- Williams v. State, 2 So. 3d 1089 (Fla. 5th DCA) (overruled in part by this opinion regarding Ashley-based advisals)
- Murphy v. State, 952 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 5th DCA) (overruled in part by this opinion regarding Ashley-based advisals)