Kimberly Hartfield v. State of Florida
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledFebruary 4, 2021
Docket1D20-1240
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
____________________________
NO. 1D20-1240
____________________________
KIMBERLY HARTFIELD,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.
Jennie Kinsey, Judge.
February 4, 2021
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Kimberly Hartfield, entered an open plea of nolo
contendere to grand theft and bank fraud. The trial court imposed
an aggregate sentence of six years followed by nine years of
probation. Following her conviction, Appellant filed a pro se
motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of
Criminal Procedure 3.850. The motion alleged that trial defense
counsel was ineffective for failing to convey a plea deal from the
State for thirty-six months of incarceration. Appellant requested
an evidentiary hearing and to be appointed counsel. The trial
court ordered an evidentiary hearing but denied the request for
appointment of counsel. After the evidentiary hearing, the
postconviction court denied the motion. Appellant now appeals the
denial of her postconviction claim and the trial court’s denial of her
request for counsel. We affirm.
I.
A trial court’s order denying a motion to appoint
postconviction counsel in a noncapital case is reviewed for abuse of
discretion. Wheeler v. State, 807 So. 2d 94, 96 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).
When deciding whether to appoint counsel for a postconviction
motion, the trial court should consider: (1) the adversary nature of
the proceeding; (2) its complexity; (3) the need for an evidentiary
hearing and; (4) the need for substantial legal research. Williams
v. State, 472 So. 2d 738, 740 (Fla. 1985).
Here, the issue was a dispute about whether a plea offer
existed. The issue was purely factual, was not overly complex, and
did not require substantial legal research. Therefore, the trial
court did not abuse its discretion by denying the request for
counsel. See Ladson v. State, 829 So. 2d 305, 307 (Fla. 5th DCA
2002) (affirming a trial court’s refusal to appoint postconviction
counsel where “the issue was a simple, factual one” and “[n]o legal
research was required nor was this a complex legal proceeding”).
II.
Appellant asserts that her defense counsel never advised her
of a plea offer from the State for thirty-six months of incarceration.
Trial defense counsel testified that the State never made such an
offer and Appellant presented no evidence to the contrary.
The postconviction court denied Appellant’s claim, finding
that Appellant demonstrated neither ineffective assistance nor
prejudice to satisfy the two-part Strickland test for ineffective
assistance of counsel claims. See Strickland v. Washington, 466
U.S. 668, 687−89 (1984). The postconviction court found trial
defense counsel’s testimony credible and that the plea offer never
existed. That finding is supported by competent, substantial
evidence. See Porter v. State, 788 So. 2d 917, 923 (Fla. 2001) (“So
long as [the trial court’s] decisions are supported by competent,
substantial evidence, [an appellate court] will not substitute its
judgment for that of the trial court on questions of fact and,
2
likewise, on the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be
given to the evidence by the trial court.”).
AFFIRMED.
ROWE, OSTERHAUS, and LONG, JJ., concur.
_____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and
authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
9.331.
_____________________________
Kimberly Hartfield, pro se, Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and David Welch, Assistant
Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
3