Court Opinion

ID: 9904239
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-27 16:26:16.333715+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:25.438894
License: Public Domain

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
                      FIFTH DISTRICT

                                   NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
                                   FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
                                   DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

LEANDRE WRIGHT,

            Appellant,

v.                                        Case No. 5D22-727
                                          LT Case No. 2015-CF-2137
STATE OF FLORIDA,

          Appellee.
________________________________/

Opinion filed August 12, 2022

3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court
for Hernando County,
Daniel B. Merritt, Jr., Judge.

Joe Caimano, of Caimano Law Firm,
Tampa, for Appellant.

No Appearance for Appellee.

WOZNIAK, J.

      Leandre Wright appeals the trial court’s summary denial of his motion

seeking postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure

3.850. In his motion, Wright raised one claim of ineffective assistance of

counsel, alleging that his trial counsel did not effectively advise him

concerning the State’s plea offer. Specifically, Wright asserted that had he
been properly advised that his motions to suppress were weak, he would

have accepted the State’s plea offer; the State would not have withdrawn the

offer; the trial court would have accepted the offer; and the sentence under

the offer would have been less than the sentence imposed. See Alcorn v.

State, 121 So. 3d 419 (Fla. 2013) (setting out four criteria that must be

established to demonstrate prejudice arising from counsel’s ineffectiveness

in relation to a rejected plea offer). He further alleged that he had not wanted

to go to trial and that he had not known that his sentences would be run

consecutively.    The State conceded that an evidentiary hearing was

necessary to resolve the claim, but the trial court summarily denied Wright’s

motion upon finding that the pretrial colloquy between Wright and the trial

court conclusively refuted his claim. Concluding that the transcript attached

to the denial order does not conclusively refute Wright’s claim, we reverse

and remand for the trial court to attach documents conclusively refuting

Wright's claim or to conduct an evidentiary hearing. See Robinson v. State,

972 So. 2d 1115, 1116 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (reversing summary denial of

rule 3.850 motion because claims were not conclusively refuted by the

record).

      REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions.

WALLIS and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.

                                       2