Kohutka v. State
The Second DCA reversed the denial of Kohutka's 3.850 motion alleging ineffective assistance where counsel failed to advise him before rejecting a five-year plea offer that he faced up to thirty years as a habitual violent felony offender. The court held the postconviction court erred by finding that the trial court's later explanation of sentencing exposure on the morning of trial cured any prejudice, since Strickland prejudice in the plea-rejection context must be assessed based on facts known at the time the offer was rejected, not later events.
Key facts
- Kohutka rejected a five-year plea offer without being informed by counsel that he faced up to thirty years in prison as a habitual violent felony offender.
- The trial court later explained sentencing exposure on the morning of trial, but this occurred after Kohutka had already rejected the plea offer.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This decision reinforces and clarifies the Wilson/Armstrong/Phillips line of Second DCA precedent holding that post-rejection curative explanations by a trial court cannot retroactively eliminate Strickland prejudice… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.