AUGUSTINE L. PEREZ, 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 allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel and involuntary plea.
Appellant sought post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and an involuntary guilty plea. The trial court summarily denied 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
[*554] 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 four points in his motion. In Point I, he alleged that he was denied effective assistance of counsel through the public defender’s failure to investigate the facts of his case. In Point II, appellant asserted that his guilty plea was involuntarily entered in response to the public defender’s coercion and failure to apprise appellant of the consequences of a plea. If these allegations are true, appellant might be entitled to relief. The trial court, however, failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing or to attach portions of the record that refute these allegations.
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, and attach to its order those portions of the record which conclusively show that appellant is entitled to no relief, or hold an evidentiary hearing and then rule on the first and second allegations raised in appellant’s 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); Van Bever v. State, 405 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). To obtain further review in this cause, an aggrieved party must appeal the trial court’s subsequent rulings anew.
The trial court was correct in denying appellant’s motion as to the other points raised therein. Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.
BOARDMAN, A.C.J., and RYDER and DANAHY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pate v. State, 547 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…onviction relief followed and was denied by the trial court without hearing. It was error for the trial court to deny summarily the appellant’s motion, because the record does not conclusively refute the allegations of his petition. Perez v. State, 430 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). Appellant states that when he agreed to plead guilty, he did not know what “sub [*318] stantial assistance” would be required. That is borne out by the transcript of the plea hearing, when the prosecutor stated that the substanti…
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)