Santos v. State

125 So.3d 962

Carlos SANTOS, Appellant,

v.STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D12–1466.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 5, 2013.

Stewart Valencia of Holman, Cohen & Valencia, Hollywood, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Sue–Ellen Kenny, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

GROSS, J.

Carlos Santos appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, which alleges four separate grounds for relief. We affirm all points and write to address Point 1.

Santos was convicted after jury trial of trafficking in cocaine and conspiracy to traffic in cocaine. The court sentenced him to concurrent terms of fifteen years in prison. Santos' postconviction motion alleged these facts:

8. The defendant, Carlos Santos was never told by his trial counsel that his codefendent Carlos Aldarondo would be testifying against him at trial, and initially, found out when [the assistant state attorney] eluded [sic] to it in her opening argument on March 18th 2008.

9. Trial counsel's performance was deficient in that his failure to notify the Defendant of this extremely important fact did not allow the Defendant the opportunity to properly evaluate his case, and there is a reasonable probability that counsel's deficient performance affected the outcome of the trial. Had the Defendant been told that his co-defendant would be testifying against him, he would have taken the government's offer to plea said case.

The State's response to the motion included record attachments that showed that Aldarondo was listed as a prosecution witness over one year prior to trial. A transcript demonstrated that, during voir dire, the prosecutor told the jury panel that Carlos Aldarondo was a “potential witness” in the case. Thus, the allegation contained in paragraph 8, above, was demonstrably false.

A transcript also shows that prior to voir dire, the trial court extensively inquired about whether a plea offer had been made and explored Santos' understanding of the potential consequences of his rejecting the plea and being found guilty at trial. The prosecutor said that she had offered a plea to three years in prison “as a minimum mandatory.” The court asked defense counsel if he had discussed the plea with his client; the attorney responded that he had and that his client had rejected it. The prosecutor then said that the “co-defendant [pled] out.” The trial court then questioned Santos about the plea offer and the consequences of a guilty verdict if he were to be found guilty after a trial:

The Court: Mr. Santos, do you understand that you are facing two possible counts? One is trafficking in cocaine. The maximum period of time that you could go to prison for, on that particular charge if you were to be found guilty by the jury, would be 30 years, do you understand that, sir?

Santos: Yes, sir.

The Court: Okay. And, you have a second count. That is for conspiracy to traffic in cocaine, do you understand that, sir?

Santos: Yes, sir.

The Court: The maximum period of time you could go to prison for on that charge would be 30 years, do you understand that?

Santos: Yes, sir.

The Court: If the jury were to come back and find you guilty with regard to both charges, do you understand that the maximum period of time that you could face is 30 years in Florida State Prison, do you understand that?

Santos: Yes, sir.

The Court: Count 1, trafficking in cocaine, has a minimum mandatory of three years in Florida State Prison. This court's legislative directive, I guess is the best way to describe it, would be that I could sentence you to no less than three years as a minimum mandatory on Count 1. However, you would have a maximum of 60 years in Florida State Prison if you are found guilty as charged. The State said to me that they have relayed to you an offer. That offer was three years in Florida State Prison, with a three year minimum mandatory, do you understand that?

Santos: Yes.

The Court: I don't want to know what you discussed with [trial counsel], or anyone associated with this case during the period of time that this case has been pending, but you have had a full opportunity to discuss what could happen to you as a result of being convicted, is that correct?

Santos: Yes.

The Court: And it's your desire to reject the three year minimum mandatory offer that has been presented by the State?

Santos: Correct.

The record thus demonstrates that a generous plea was available, that a co-defendant who had taken a plea was a potential witness, that Santos knew about the strong possibility of this testimony at least by the beginning of voir dire, and that Santos rejected the plea in spite of the trial judge's crystal clear portrayal of the risk of going to trial. There is no allegation in the motion that Santos reconsidered and sought to reopen plea negotiations at any time prior to the verdict. The record paints a picture of a defendant who rolled the dice and lost, but who now seeks to reinstate a...