ROBERT LEE SIMMONS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Robert Simmons appealed his conviction and sentence following guilty pleas to armed robbery and attempted murder. The court affirmed the trial court's denial of post-conviction relief, finding that Simmons' pleas were made voluntarily and with understanding of their consequences.
The pleas were freely and voluntarily made with full understanding of the consequences. The trial court properly denied the motion for post-conviction relief. The court noted that Simmons' claim regarding deprivation of appeal due to his court-appointed counsel's default was not cognizable under Rule 3.850.
[1] A trial court must attach portions of the files and records that conclusively show a prisoner is entitled to no relief when denying a motion to vacate sentences.
[2] A plea is considered voluntary and made with understanding of the consequences when the defendant is questioned closely concerning their understanding of recommended sent…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“After ascertaining the factual basis for the pleas, questioning Simmons closely concerning his understanding of the recommended concurrent sentences, advising him that the sentences could be for life, the court accepted Simmons' pleas”
Establishes that the trial court properly ensured Simmons understood the consequences of his plea and conducted a lawful plea colloquy
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSimmons pleaded guilty to six counts of armed robbery and one count of attempted murder in the first degree pursuant to a plea agreement where the pro…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Cognizable Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
[*870] PER CURIAM.
Simmons pleaded guilty to six counts of armed robbery and one count of attempted murder in the first degree. His court-appointed attorney and the prosecutor negotiated the pleas upon an agreement that the prosecutor would recommend concurrent sentences. After ascertaining the factual basis for the pleas, questioning Simmons closely concerning his understanding of the recommended concurrent sentences, advising him that the sentences could be for life, the court accepted Simmons’ pleas, received and considered a presentence investigation report, and sentenced Simmons to six concurrent life terms and one consecutive ten-year term for attempted murder. Simmons later filed a motion to vacate the sentences, Fla.R.Cr.P. 3.850, alleging that the pleas were unlawfully induced and not made voluntarily, that the plea agreement, according to his counsel, was for lesser sentences, and that Simmons was denied effective assistance of counsel. The trial court reviewed the record of the proceedings, changed the consecutive sentence for attempted murder to a concurrent sentence, and otherwise found that the records conclusively show that Simmons is entitled to no relief. On Simmons’ appeal, we found that the court’s order lacked attached copies “of that portion of the files and records which conclusively [show] that the prisoner is entitled to no relief . . . .” Fla.R.Cr.P. 3.850. We therefore ordered the record supplemented, and have examined the transcripts of the plea and sentencing proceedings. Those transcripts show that the pleas were freely and voluntarily made, with understanding of the consequences. The plea bargain was stated in the record.
Simmons’ claim that he was deprived of an appeal by the default of his court-appointed private counsel was not cognizable by the trial court on a Rule 3.850 motion.
AFFIRMED.
SMITH, Acting C. J., ERVIN, J., and MASON, ERNEST E., Associate Judge, concur.