A defendant is bound by sworn answers provided during a plea colloquy and cannot later disavow those statements by claiming they were made at counsel's direction.
A defendant filed a motion for postconviction relief alleging that his plea was involuntary because counsel misadvised him regarding his sentence and coached him to lie during the plea colloquy. The court considers whether a defendant can disavow sworn statements made during a plea colloquy by claiming they were made at counsel's direction. The court holds that a defendant is bound by his sworn answers during a plea colloquy and cannot later disavow those answers by asserting he lied at counsel's direction. Because the claims were procedurally barred or refuted by the record, the motion is denied.
At page 139 Binding nature of sworn answers during plea colloquy6 citing casesA defendant is bound by his sworn answers during a plea colloquy and cannot later disavow those answers by asserting that he lied during the colloquy at counsel's direction.
- Weck v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr., No. 5:17-cv-00003 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 9, 2019).(A defendant is bound by his sworn answers during a plea colloquy and cannot later disavow those answers by asserting that he lied during the colloquy at counsel's direction.)
- Rivero v. State, 121 So. 3d 1175 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013).published(A defendant is bound by his sworn answers during a plea colloquy and cannot later disavow those answers by asserting that he lied during the colloquy at counsel’s direction.)
- Dejesus v. State, 255 So. 3d 423 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018).published(A defendant is bound by his sworn answers during a plea colloquy ....)
- Smalls v. Sec'y Florida Dep't Of Corr. (Duval Cnty.), No. 3:19-cv-00321 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 21, 2021). “[a] defendant is bound by his sworn answers during a plea colloquy and cannot later disavow those answers by asserting that he lied during the colloquy at counsel's direction”
- Rodriguez v. State, 223 So. 3d 1095 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017).published(holding that Alfred’s claim that counsel coached him to lie during the plea colloquy did not require an évidentiary hearing)
- Wisnia Etienne v. State of Florida, 171 So. 3d 183 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015).publishedSee Alfred v. State, 71 So.3d 138, 139 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011); Alfred v. State, 998 So.2d 1197, 1199-200 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009).
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee
We affirm the trial court’s order summarily denying appellant’s Rule 3.850 motion and amended motion for postconviction relief.
Appellant’s motion and amended motion raised procedurally-barred claims that his plea was involuntary due to ineffective assistance of counsel and appellant’s alleged misunderstanding as to the possible sentence. This court rejected these claims on direct appeal. Alfred v. State, 998 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (holding that plea colloquy conclusively showed that appellant was not entitled to relief on his claim that counsel misadvised him as to the potential sentence and holding that any deficiency of trial counsel did not prejudice appellant). A Rule 8.850 motion cannot be used to litigate issues that could have been or were raised and rejected on direct appeal. Teffeteller v. Dugger, 734 So.2d 1009, 1016 (Fla.1999); see also Brown v. State, 596 So.2d 1026, 1028 (Fla.1992) (“Raising a different argument in a rule 3.850 motion to relitigate an issue raised and rejected on direct appeal is inappropriate.”).
Further, as we already held in the direct appeal, appellant’s allegation that he believed his sentence would be capped at fifteen years is thoroughly refuted by the record. Appellant’s new allegation, which he raised for the first time in his amended posteonviction motion — that counsel coached him to lie during the plea colloquy — does not require an evidentiary hearing. A defendant is bound by his sworn answers during a plea colloquy and cannot later disavow those answers by asserting that he lied during the colloquy at counsel’s direction. Iacono v. State, 930 So.2d 829, 831 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); see also Polk v. State, 56 So.3d 804, 808 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (agreeing that “a defendant should be estopped to receive an evidentia-ry hearing on a postconviction claim when the basis of the claim is that he lied under oath at the relevant hearing”).
Affirmed.
TAYLOR and CONNER, JJ., concur.