Constantine Kalogianis v. State of Florida
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledApril 20, 2022
Docket2D21-3770
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
CONSTANTINE KALOGIANIS,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
No. 2D21-3770
April 20, 2022
Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit
Court for Pasco County; Kimberly Campbell, Judge.
Constantine Kalogianis, pro se.
SLEET, Judge.
Constantine Kalogianis appeals from the summary denial of
his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of
Criminal Procedure 3.850. Because Kalogianis' claim is not
conclusively refuted by the record, we reverse and remand.
Kalogianis pleaded guilty to one count of scheme to defraud
and eight counts of forgery. The trial court sentenced him to nine
years' imprisonment followed by nine years' probation for scheme to
defraud, concurrent with five years' imprisonment for each of the
forgery counts. Kalogianis filed the instant timely motion for
postconviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel based
on his attorney's failure to convey a plea offer.
He alleged that prior to trial, he retained counsel for the "sole
purpose" of securing a plea deal. His attorney tried to obtain a
probationary sentence but was unable to do so, and Kalogianis
ultimately proceeded pro se. During trial, Kalogianis requested the
assistance of counsel, and an assistant public defender was
appointed. Then, with the assistance of the public defender,
Kalogianis entered open pleas. During this time, the public
defender allegedly informed Kalogianis that the State had previously
presented a three-year plea deal to his former attorney, which was
rejected. In his motion, Kalogianis alleged that his former attorney
never presented the offer to him.
When a rule 3.850 motion is summarily denied, we "must
accept the movant's factual allegations as true to the extent that
2
they are not refuted by the record." Jennings v. State, 123 So. 3d
1101, 1121 (Fla. 2013). "We may only affirm a postconviction
court's summary denial if the record conclusively shows that the
appellant is entitled to no relief." Tualla v. State, 251 So. 3d 337,
338 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) (quoting Wesby v. State, 230 So. 3d 939,
941 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)).
Failure of counsel to convey a plea offer can constitute
ineffective assistance of trial counsel. See Jacques v. State, 193 So.
3d 1065, 1065-66 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016).
[T]o establish prejudice, the [movant] must allege and
prove a reasonable probability . . . that (1) he or she
would have accepted the offer had counsel advised the
[movant] correctly, (2) the prosecutor would not have
withdrawn the offer, (3) the court would have accepted
the offer, and (4) the conviction or sentence, or both,
under the offer's terms would have been less severe than
under the judgment and sentence that in fact were
imposed.
Alcorn v. State, 121 So. 3d 419, 430 (Fla. 2013); see also Forbes v.
State, 269 So. 3d 677, 680 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019).
Here, the postconviction court correctly concluded that
Kalogianis' claim was facially sufficient as it alleged that he would
have accepted the offer, that the prosecutor would not have
withdrawn the offer, that the trial court would have accepted the
3
offer, and that a three-year sentence would have been less severe
than the sentence he received. However, the postconviction court
found the claim to be conclusively refuted by Kalogianis' allegations
that he retained counsel "to secure a probationary sentence" and
that they parted ways after the attorney's "efforts were unsuccessful
in securing a probationary sentence." The postconviction court
reasoned that "even if the attorney had conveyed the State's 3-year
offer, Defendant would not have accepted it because at the time the
offer would have been conveyed, he was seeking a probationary
sentence only."
Contrary to the postconviction court's characterization of the
claim, Kalogianis did not allege that he retained counsel only to
secure a probationary sentence; rather, he alleged that "[t]he sole
purpose of retaining [the attorney] was to secure a plea deal in this
matter." He did not allege that he only sought or would have only
accepted a probationary sentence but instead alleged that he
retained counsel to obtain a plea deal and that he "would have
accepted a 3 year DOC sentence."
Because Kalogianis' claim is not conclusively refuted by the
record, we reverse and remand for the postconviction court to either
4
attach those portions of the record that conclusively refute the
claim or conduct an evidentiary hearing. See Fla. R. Crim. P.
3.850(f)(5), (8).
Reversed and remanded.
SILBERMAN and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
5