CHARLES DORRIS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the postconviction court’s order summarily denying Charles Dorris’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Our affirmance is without prejudice to any right Dorris may have to file a facially sufficient rule 3.850 motion seeking to withdraw his pleas on the ground that they were involuntarily entered. Any such motion shall be filed within sixty days from the date of the issuance of the mandate in this case. We note that if Dorris is ultimately successful in withdrawing from his negotiated plea agreement, he may be subject to any legal sentences that could be imposed upon conviction of the offenses charged. See Tow-ery v. State, 977 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008).
Affirmed.
FULMER, KELLY, and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Nelfrard v. State, 34 So. 3d 221 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…05); Simeton v. State, 734 So. 2d 446, 447 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). However, the plea colloquy itself may conclusively refute a defendant’s allegations that counsel misrepresented the length of time the defendant would serve. See, e.g., Alfred v. State, 998 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). Where the court informs a defendant of his sentencing exposure, a defendant may not reasonably rely on a contrary representation by counsel. See, e.g., Scheele v. State, 953 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (holding that a defenda…
-
Makendy Alfred v. State, 71 So. 3d 138 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…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 ap…
-
Makenson Saintiler v. State, 109 So. 3d 303 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…motion was facially insufficient because appellant did not allege that he would not have entered the plea and would have insisted on going to trial had he been properly informed. Grosvenor v. State, 874 So. 2d 1176, 1179 (Fla.2004); Alfred v. State, 998 So. 2d 1197, 1200 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009); Grogin v. State, 824 So. 2d 984, 984 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). Second, the motion was facially insufficient because it failed to [*305] allege that withdrawal of the plea was necessary to correct a manifest injustice. See Powel…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Angeline Towery v. State, 977 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)