MILFORD HUGHES, 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 by failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing or attach record portions refuting the appellant's claim of an involuntary plea based on police promises.
Appellant sought post-conviction relief, alleging he entered an involuntary guilty plea due to police promises regarding the charges he would face. Th…
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 Involuntary Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant seeks review of the trial court’s order summarily denying his motion for post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Appellant raised two points in the motion. In point two, he alleged that as a result of promises by the police that he would be charged only with breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor, he involuntarily and mistakenly entered a plea of guilty to the charge of breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny. If this allegation is true, appellant might be entitled to relief. The trial court, however, failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing or attach portions of the record that refute this allegation.
Accordingly, we reverse in part the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion and remand the case to the trial court. On remand, the trial court may either again summarily deny the motion as to the allegation in point two and attach to its order those portions of the record that conclusively show that appellant is not entitled to relief or hold an evidentiary hearing and then rule on the ground alleged in point two of the motion. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850. See also Halpin v. State, 428 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Jones v. State, 421 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); and Van Bever v. State, 405 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). To obtain further review in this cause, either party aggrieved by subsequent rulings of the trial court must appeal anew.
The trial court was correct in denying appellant’s motion as to the other point raised therein. AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
HOBSON, Acting C.J., and RYDER and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pate v. State, 547 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…e plea was mistakenly entered into upon the promise that the State would cooperate with appellant in performance of substantial assistance, which promise the State refused to fulfill. This may entitle appellant to withdraw his plea. Hughes v. State, 427 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s summary denial of appellant’s motion and remand to the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the issues raised therein. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. DELL a…
-
State v. Brown, 455 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 1984)…PER CURIAM. We quash that portion of the district court opinion, 427 So. 2d 791 (Fla.App.1983), which reverses Brown’s sentence for possession of a firearm during commission of a felony and remand for affirmance of that sentence. State v. Charles Baker, 456 So. 2d 419 (Fla.1984); State v. Thomas Baker, 452 So. 2d 927 (Fla.1984)…
Authorities Cited
- Jones v. State, 421 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- VAN Bever v. State, 405 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Halpin v. State, 428 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)