HOWARD D. 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.
This case concerns an appeal from the denial of a motion for post-conviction relief. The appellate court affirmed the denial, finding that the lower court's records conclusively showed the appellant was not entitled to relief.
No, Simmons was not denied effective assistance of counsel. The records show he understood the maximum sentence and pleaded voluntarily, and his subsequent imprisonment resulted from violating release conditions, not from counsel's alleged misadvice.
[1] A trial court may deny a Rule 3.850 motion without a hearing if the files and records conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief.
[2] A defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on erroneous advice regarding sentencing is refuted by records showing the defendant understood the maximum…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Because the Rule 3.850 motion was not legally insufficient on its face, and the trial court neither stated a reason for denying a hearing on the motion, nor gave reference to “files and records in the case conclusively showpng] that the prisoner is entitled to no relief,” we ordered filed a transcript of the proceedings at which Simmons entered his plea.”
This quote explains the appellate court's initial reasoning for reviewing the case records despite the trial court's summary denial.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSimmons alleged ineffective assistance of counsel, claiming his attorney advised him to plead nolo contendere based on promises of a light sentence or…
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 Direct Consequences Of A Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., Judge.
Simmons appeals from the trial court’s denial, without comment, of his Rule 3.850 motion which alleged that Simmons was denied the effective assistance of counsel in that his counsel advised him to plead nolo contendere “so that he could be sent to Walnut House, a half-way house, and was advised that he would be given a light sentence or probation thereafter.” The motion further alleged that, after 60 days in Walnut House, Simmons was returned to court where another judge, without proper advice from defendant’s counsel concerning prior proceedings, imposed a sentence of imprisonment for five years for entering without breaking.
Because the Rule 3.850 motion was not legally insufficient on its face, and the trial court neither stated a reason for denying a hearing on the motion, nor gave reference to “files and records in the case conclusively showpng] that the prisoner is entitled to no relief,” we ordered filed a transcript of the proceedings at which Simmons entered his plea. The Attorney General additionally filed docket sheets and other records of the circuit court indicating the history of the case. The records show conclusively that Simmons pleaded nolo contendere understanding that the maximum possible sentence was five years, and that the court accepted the plea after determining it was made voluntarily and with a full understanding of the consequences. Sentencing was deferred and, by agreement of defense counsel and the prosecutor, the court released Simmons on his own recognizance to Walnut House. On September 3, 1975, for violation of conditions of his release to Walnut House, Simmons was remanded to jail and, following other proceedings, was sentenced.
Thus the files and records of the circuit court show that Simmons’ Rule 3.850 motion was false or misleading in material respects, that Simmons was sentenced to imprisonment as a result of violating conditions of his release, and that he was entitled to no relief.
AFFIRMED.
MILLS, C. J. and SHIVERS, J., concur.