KEVIN EARNEST WALKER, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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 Florida District Court of Appeal reversed in part a trial court's summary denial of a Rule 3.850 post-conviction motion, holding that an allegation of misinformation regarding guilty plea consequences presents a legally sufficient basis for relief that requires either an evidentiary hearing or a supported written denial.
An allegation that a defendant was misinformed of the consequences of his guilty plea presents a legally sufficient basis for post-conviction relief. When a Rule 3.850 motion raises a legally sufficient ground, the trial court must either conduct an evidentiary hearing or attach record portions conclusively refuting the allegation to its order; summary denial based solely on legal insufficiency is improper.
[1] A post-conviction relief motion is legally insufficient if its allegations are vague and without merit.
[2] An allegation that a defendant was misinformed of the consequences of a guilty plea, if true, presents a legally sufficient basis for vacating the plea.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“This allegation, if true, presents a legally sufficient basis for vacating the plea.”
Establishes that misinformation regarding plea consequences is cognizable grounds for post-conviction relief
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKevin Earnest Walker filed a Rule 3.850 post-conviction relief motion with two grounds. Ground One alleged he was misinformed of the consequences of h…
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 Consequences Of Guilty Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant’s motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 was summarily denied by the trial court because of legal insufficiency. Two grounds were set forth in the motion. Ground Two is so vague as to be totally without merit and therefore the trial court was correct in denying that portion of the motion. In Ground One, however, the defendant alleged that he was misinformed of the consequences of his guilty plea. This allegation, if true, presents a legally sufficient basis for vacating the plea. Perez v. State, 430 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); see Williams v. State, 316 So. 2d 267 (Fla.1975).
Thus, the trial court was required either to attach to its order the portions of the record refuting the allegation or to conduct an evidentiary hearing in order to determine whether the allegation is true or not. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850. The reason for these procedural safeguards is to preserve the movant’s rights in anticipation of appellate review.
Consequently, when the Rule 3.850 motion presents a legally sufficient ground, the trial court cannot merely recite that the record conclusively demonstrates the mov-ant is entitled to no relief and enter its order accordingly. If an evidentiary hearing is not granted, the movant’s rights must be protected by furnishing the appellate court with the material that defeats the motion. Of course, the trial court here deemed it unnecessary to do either because it based its ruling upon the legal insufficiency of the motion. Our holding as to Ground One renders that ruling partially erroneous.
We therefore reverse in part the denial of the defendant’s motion for post-conviction relief. On remand, the trial court may either summarily deny Ground One of the motion and attach to its order those portions of the record which conclusively show that the defendant is not entitled to relief, or conduct an evidentiary hearing and then rule on Ground One. Perez v. State, supra; Jones v. State, 421 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Van Bever v. State, 405 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).
Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 316 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 1975)
- Jones v. State, 421 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- VAN Bever v. State, 405 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)