Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

713 So. 2d 1127

Docket No. 98-1396.

Hoskins v. State

Derick HOSKINS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided July 29, 1998.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1998-07-29

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently July 2000

3 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“[W]ere it to be made clear to a defendant at the time the plea was entered that he could not rely on anyone's estimated computation of the time the defendant would actually serve, then such a defendant would have no basis to complain later. That is the practice the district courts have urged upon the trial courts in accepting pleas. .... A defendant who is informed by the court during the plea colloquy that he may have to serve every day of a ten-year sentence could hardly reasonably rely on counsel's advice to the contrary. But if that matter was not discussed when the plea was taken, a hearing would be necessary to determine the merits of a defendant's claim that he relied in good faith upon the erroneous advice of his attorney in entering a plea. It is only when the record "conclusively" establishes that the defendant did not rely on the advice of counsel that a summary adjudication will be proper.”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including Bell v. State, 718 So. 2d 1278 - Rensoli v. State

Relies on 689 So. 2d 235 - State v. Leroux · 703 So. 2d 465 - Pomeranz v. State · Resta v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1998-07-29

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Derick Hoskins, in proper person.

¶2Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Lara J. Edelstein, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

¶3Before COPE, GERSTEN and SHEVIN, JJ.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5Derick Hoskins appeals an order denying his motion for postconviction relief. He contends that he was erroneously advised by counsel that he would only be required to serve sixty-five percent of his sentence, whereas in reality he will have to serve eighty-five percent of his sentence. The trial *1128 court denied his postconviction motion to withdraw his plea, and defendant-appellant has appealed.

¶6The trial court was entirely correct. At the plea colloquy Judge Platzer asked the following questions and received the following answers:

THE COURT: Has anybody made any representation to you as to how much time you will actually serve in the state penitentiary under your sentence?
THE DEFENDANT: No.
THE COURT: So you understand that you may very well serve each and every day of your ten-year sentence?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

¶7The plea colloquy thus conclusively refutes defendant's claim.

¶8As stated by the Florida Supreme Court, "A defendant who is informed by the court during the plea colloquy that he may have to serve every day of a ten-year sentence could hardly reasonably rely on counsel's advice to the contrary." State v. Leroux,689 So.2d 235, 238 (Fla.1996); see also Resta v. State,698 So.2d 378, 379 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied,703 So.2d 477 (Fla.1997).

¶9Affirmed.

/713/so2d/1127 · .json · Public domain