CHRISTOPHER SEABROOK, 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 reversed in part the trial court's summary denial of post-conviction relief where the trial court failed to attach record portions refuting the claim of an involuntary guilty plea or conduct an evidentiary hearing.
A trial court must either attach portions of the record conclusively refuting a claim of involuntary guilty plea or conduct an evidentiary hearing before summarily denying post-conviction relief.
[1] A trial court must either attach portions of the record conclusively refuting an involuntary guilty plea allegation or conduct an evidentiary hearing before summarily den…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSeabrook appealed the summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief, alleging his conviction resulted from an involuntary guilty plea becaus…
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 Evidentiary Hearing Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Christopher Seabrook appeals the summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. He raised three points in the motion. In point one, he alleged that his conviction was obtained by an involuntary guilty plea because he was threatened with the possibility of a severe sentence if he did not plead guilty. If this allegation is true, he might be entitled to relief. The trial court, however, failed to either attach portions of the record which conclusively refute this allegation or conduct an evidentiary hearing. The trial court correctly denied appellant’s motion as to points two and three.
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 court may either again summarily deny the motion as to the allegation in point one and attach to its order those portions of the record which conclusively show that appellant is not entitled to relief or hold an evidentiary hearing and then rule on the allegation. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850. See also Jones v. State, 421 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Van Bever v. State, 405 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). To obtain further review, appellant must appeal the trial court’s new ruling.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
HOBSON, A.C.J., and RYDER and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
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)