County
Criminal Court: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – Post Conviction Relief – Ineffective Assistance of
Counsel – Ineffective assistance of counsel not shown where defendant failed
to show that counsel’s performance was so deficient as to deprive the defendant
of counsel and that the deficiencies prejudiced the defense. Order affirmed. Barrows
v. State, No. 01-94 (
IN
AND
APPELLATE
DIVISION
Appellant,
vs.
CRC01-15858CFANO
STATE
OF
Appellee.
______________________________________/
Appeal
from Order Denying Motion for Post-Conviction Relief
County
Judge Thomas B. Freeman
Martin
G. McCarthy, Esq.
Attorney
for Appellant
Vera
Arapi, Esq.
Assistant
State Attorney
Attorney
for Appellee
THIS MATTER is before the Court
on the defendant’s appeal from an Order Denying Defendant’s Motion to Set
Aside Plea. The defendant’s motion
was filed pursuant to Woods v. State, 750 So.2d 592 (
In 1983, the defendant entered pleas of nolo contendere to three separate DUI’s. The defendant had one prior uncounseled conviction for DUI in 1981. In CTC 83-44255KYASP the defendant’s driving privileges were suspended for five (5) years, in CTC 83-66513LDASP the defendant’s driving privileges were suspended for ten (10) years and in CTC 83-986810KBACL the defendant’s driving privileges were revoked for life. The defendant was notified December 23, 1998, by the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles that he was no longer eligible for the limited restoration of his driving privileges due to a statutory amendment of Fla. Stat. §322.271, which became effective July 1, 1998. The defendant claims his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate whether his prior DUI was uncounseled and as a result of the failure to move to strike the uncounseled plea, the defendant was subject to enhanced penalties and a lifetime driver’s revocation.
The trial court held a hearing on the defendant’s Motion to Set Aside
Plea. At that hearing, the defendant argued that his
attorney in 1983 never attempted to ascertain whether his prior case was valid
for the purposes of enhancement. The
trial court denied the motion, stating: “Based upon what I heard here today,
the defendant did not provide to the court credible testimony to indicate
that he was misled by any counsel. He
wasn’t even sure who his counsel was, male or female. Also the court finds that he was licensed in
In Valle v. State, 778 So.2d
960 (
In the case at bar, the defendant does not meet either prong of the Strickland test based on the record before this Court. There is no testimony that the defendant’s counsel was so deficient so as to deprive the defendant of counsel. The evidence before the trial court is that the defendant did not recall discussing the 1981 DUI with his counsel. As to the second, prong, the defendant has failed to present competent substantial evidence that counsel’s performance prejudiced him. The defendant was given a correct statement of law by his counsel. In 1983 when the defendant entered his plea, the statute did allow for a limited restoration of driving privileges on a lifetime DUI revocation. The defendant has not presented any evidence that he would not have entered the pleas to the three pending DUI’s or that the results of the proceedings would have been any different. It is therefore,
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the trial court’s Order denying the defendant’s Motion to Withdraw Plea is affirmed.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers
at
___________________________________
NANCY
MOATE LEY
Circuit
Judge
Primary
Appellate Judge
____________________________________
W.
DOUGLAS BAIRD
Circuit
Judge
____________________________________
R.
TIMOTHY PETERS
Circuit
Judge
Copies
furnished to:
The Honorable Thomas B. Freeman
Martine G. McCarthy
Attorney for Appellant
Veri Arapi
Assistant State Attorney
Attorney for Appellee