JAMES G. THOMAS, 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.
The court held that the trial court erred in summarily denying the motion for post-conviction relief because the record did not show the defendant understood the mandatory minimum sentence.
Defendant pled guilty to several charges and later moved for post-conviction relief, alleging he did not understand the mandatory minimum sentence and…
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 Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.172(C) cases and more on FLexlaw
[*860] SCHEB, Chief Judge.
James G. Thomas pled guilty on March 6, 1979, to two counts of robbery, one count of aggravated assault, one count of fleeing a police officer and one count of obstructing or opposing an officer with violence. On July 24, 1980, Thomas moved for postcon-viction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. He alleged in his motion that he did not understand that the offenses with which he was charged carried a three-year mandatory minimum sentence, and that he was denied effective assistance of counsel.
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.172(c), Acceptance of Guilty or Nolo Con-tendere Plea, requires that, “the trial judge . shall address the defendant personally and shall determine that he understands the following: (i) The nature of the charge to which the plea is offered, the mandatory minimum penalty provided by law, if any . . . .”
The record shows that the trial court conducted a colloquy to determine the voluntariness of the plea. It does not indicate, however, that the court determined that Thomas understood that the charges to which he pled required it to impose a three-year minimum sentence.1 Therefore, the trial court erred in summarily denying Thomas’ Rule 3.850 motion. See Richmond v. State, 375 So. 2d 1132 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Norris v. State, 343 So. 2d 964 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). We have also examined Thomas’ contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. We find this allegation affords no basis for relief.
We remand for the trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Thomas understood that these offenses required the court to impose a minimum three-year sentence. If not, the court must give him an opportunity to withdraw his plea. Norris, 343 So. 2d at 964-65.
HOBSON and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur. . Otherwise, the colloquy established the voluntariness of Thomas’ plea.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Perez v. State, 449 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)…n the possible minimum mandatory penalties which could be imposed. Such advice is necessary in order that a guilty or nolo contendere plea may be intelligently and voluntarily entered. See State v. Wilson, 395 So. 2d 520 (Fla.1981); Thomas v. State, 386 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.172(c)(i). Defendant adequately preserved this issue for appeal by moving to withdraw his plea. Robinson v. State, 373 So. 2d 898 (Fla.1979); Counts v. State, 376 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). The record also ind…
Authorities Cited
- Richmond v. State, 375 So. 2d 1132 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
- Norris v. State, 343 So. 2d 964 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)