Michael Joseph Harris v. State of Florida
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledApril 29, 2020
Docket1D19-0135
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
No. 1D19-135
_____________________________
MICHAEL JOSEPH HARRIS,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
_____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.
Russell Healey, Judge.
April 29, 2020
WINOKUR, J.
Michael Harris entered an open guilty plea to organized fraud,
see § 817.034(4)(a)2., Fla. Stat., and was adjudicated guilty and
sentenced to five years in prison followed by four years of
probation. Harris filed a postconviction motion alleging six reasons
why his trial counsel was ineffective, and the trial court summarily
denied the motion. We affirm as to five grounds without further
comment, but reverse and remand on ground one.
To prevail on a claim that counsel was ineffective, a defendant
must demonstrate that counsel’s performance was both deficient
and prejudicial; counsel’s errors must have been so serious that the
constitutional guarantee of counsel was not satisfied, and this
deficiency must deprive the defendant of a fair trial. See Strickland
v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). A legally sufficient claim
of ineffectiveness requires an evidentiary hearing unless it is
conclusively refuted by the record. See Franqui v. State, 59 So. 3d
82, 95 (Fla. 2011).
In ground one, Harris claimed that his trial counsel advised
him that he would likely have his adjudication withheld if he
entered a guilty plea, that a withhold was very important to him
because he did not want to become a convicted felon and lose his
civil rights, and that this advice was the reason he entered the
plea. In fact, the trial court was prohibited from withholding
adjudication because Harris had a prior withhold of adjudication
from a felony charge. See § 775.08435(1)(b), Fla. Stat. The State
argued, and the postconviction court found, that any misadvice by
counsel did not prejudice Harris because he was advised by the
court at the plea colloquy that he could be sentenced to fifteen
years in prison and because the prior withhold was not a factor
that the trial court considered in imposing his sentence.
We reject the trial court’s reasoning. The relevant question is
not whether the alleged misadvice was a factor in the sentence
imposed on Harris. Rather, the court must determine whether
“there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he
would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to
trial.” Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59 (1985). Harris claims that
he would not have entered the guilty plea absent counsel’s
misadvice regarding a potential withhold of adjudication. This
claim is not refuted by the record.
Harris’ claim may be distinguished from one where counsel’s
alleged misadvice was contradicted by the trial judge at the plea
colloquy, and the defendant swore he understood the trial judge’s
advice. See, e.g., Alfred v. State, 998 So. 2d 1197, 1199 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2009) (finding the defendant’s claim that counsel misadvised
him on sentencing conclusively refuted by the plea colloquy;
“[e]ven assuming that counsel did misadvise Alfred that he would
receive a sentence no greater than fifteen years, any prejudice was
cured by the trial court at the plea colloquy”); Bowers v. State, 862
So. 2d 772, 773 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (holding that the defendant’s
claim that “counsel affirmatively misadvised him that he would
receive no more than 82 months in prison” was conclusively
refuted by the colloquy transcript showing that he “was made
2
aware he faced a maximum penalty of a hundred years in prison”).
In contrast, the misadvice Harris alleged was not refuted by his
representations at the plea colloquy.
We AFFIRM the summary denial of Harris’ postconviction
motion except as to ground one, which we REVERSE and REMAND
for the postconviction court to hold an evidentiary hearing or
attach records that conclusively refute this claim.
RAY, C.J., and KELSEY, J., concur.
_____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and
authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
9.331.
_____________________________
Alex King of Fallgatter & Catlin, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Jennifer J. Moore, Assistant
Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
3