DUNGEY v. STATE (2023)

Appellant, Nicholas M. Dungey, appeals the summary denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion in which he alleged that counsel was ineffective by failing to convey multiple favorable plea offers to him. Appellant further alleges that he was prejudiced because he accepted a plea offer that is less favorable than the offers that counsel failed to convey. Finally, he claims in his motion that: (1) he would have accepted the more favorable offers, (2) the State would not have withdrawn the offers, and (3) the court would have accepted a plea involving one of the more favorable offers.

The trial court summarily denied the claim, reasoning that the motion was legally insufficient and, alternatively, that exhibits attached to the motion and the documents attached to the order of denial conclusively refuted the claim. We conclude that the motion, although inartfully drafted, is legally sufficient and that the exhibits attached to the motion and order do not conclusively refute the claim. See, e.g., Tribbitt v. State, 339 So. 3d 1029 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022); Petit-Homme v. State, 205 So. 3d 848 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). We therefore reverse the denial and remand for an evidentiary hearing or the attachment of other records conclusively refuting the claim.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

PER CURIAM.

LAMBERT, C.J., EDWARDS and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.