PRESTON BROWN, 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 addresses whether a trial court properly denied post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. The appellate court reversed because the record did not conclusively show the defendant was entitled to no relief on his claim that his guilty plea was induced by threats or promises from his defense counsel.
The court held that the trial court erred in denying the motion without an evidentiary hearing because the record did not conclusively show that the prisoner was entitled to no relief. Although the defendant indicated satisfaction with counsel, the absence of a direct inquiry about threats or promises in the plea colloquy meant the record could not conclusively negate the possibility that the plea was induced by threats or promises.
[1] A motion for post-conviction relief may be denied without an evidentiary hearing only if the files and records in the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled…
[2] A guilty plea must not be induced by fear, misapprehension, persuasion, promises, inadvertence, or ignorance.
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“a plea of guilty "must not be induced by fear, misapprehension, persuasion, promises, inadvertence or ignorance"”
Establishes the governing legal standard for validity of guilty pleas and the requirement that the record must affirmatively show no such inducements occurred
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePreston Brown filed a motion for post-conviction relief asserting that his guilty plea was induced by fear resulting from statements made by his defen…
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 Motion For Postconviction Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is petitioner’s second appeal from the denial of a motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. On the first appeal, 418 So. 2d 464 (Fla.1982), we affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded with instructions that the trial court “append those portions of the record which demonstrate that the prisoner is entitled to no relief or, in the alternative, to afford the defendant an evidentiary hearing on grounds one and two.” In response, the trial court denied petitioner’s motion for post-conviction relief and appended the transcript of the plea conference which led to defendant’s conviction.
Rule 3.850, Fla.R.Crim.P., indicates that a motion for post-conviction relief may be denied without an evidentiary hearing if “the files and records in the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief.... ” See also Jones v. State, 384 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). Given this context, our role is to determine whether the portions of the attached record, i.e., the transcript of the plea conference, satisfy the foregoing standard. We answer in the negative.
Grounds one and two of petitioner’s motion for post-conviction relief assert that his guilty plea was induced by fear resulting from certain alleged statements of defense counsel. It is blackletter law that a plea of guilty “must not be induced by fear, misapprehension, persuasion, promises, inadvertence or ignorance,” Stovall v. State, 252 So. 2d 376, 378 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971), and, therefore, the plea acceptance colloquy normally contains an inquiry as to whether any threats or promises have been made to induce the defendant to plead guilty. The transcript of the plea conference in this case, however, fails to reveal a direct question on the topic of threats or promises. Although the defendant did indicate his satisfaction with defense counsel’s services, we cannot negate the possibility of threats or promises. Therefore, since the record appended to the trial court’s order of denial does not conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief, we reverse the order on appeal and remand with instructions to conduct an evidentiary hearing on grounds one and two of petitioner’s motion for post-conviction relief.
REVERSED and REMANDED with Instructions.
HERSEY, HURLEY and DELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Surovek v. State, 433 So. 2d 1030 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)…he multiple grounds asserted in the motion to withdraw. In balance we are of the opinion that the content of the motion was sufficient to [*1031] merit an evidentiary hearing. Stovall v. State, 252 So. 2d 376, (Fla. 4th DCA 1971) and Brown v. State, 422 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). We reverse and remand with instructions to conduct an evidentiary hearing upon defendant’s motion to withdraw guilty plea. Reversed and remanded. BERANEK and WALDEN, JJ., concur. LETTS, J., dissents without opinion.…
Authorities Cited
- Jones v. State, 384 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Bragg v. Louie L. Wainwright, 252 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)
- Brown v. State, 418 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)