HORACE WASHINGTON, 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.
Court reversed summary denial of postconviction relief motion alleging illegal enhanced sentence based on uncounseled prior convictions, requiring trial court to either attach record portions conclusively refuting the claim or hold an evidentiary hearing.
A trial court cannot summarily deny a Rule 3.850 postconviction motion alleging an illegal enhanced sentence from uncounseled prior convictions without either conducting an evidentiary hearing or attaching record portions that conclusively refute the allegation.
[1] A trial court must either conduct an evidentiary hearing on a Rule 3.850 postconviction motion or attach record portions conclusively refuting the allegations before summ…
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 intelligenceAppellant Washington sought postconviction relief claiming he received an illegal enhanced sentence because the trial court used several prior uncouns…
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 Uncounseled Prior Convictions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant seeks review of the trial court’s order summarily denying his motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Appellant’s singular point in his motion alleges that he received an illegal enhanced sentence because the trial court used several prior uncounseled convictions. If this allegation is true, appellant would be entitled to post-conviction relief. Johnson v. State, 362 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). The trial court, however, failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing or to attach portions of the record which conclusively refute appellant’s allegation.
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion and remand the ease 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 not entitled to relief, or hold an evidentiary hearing and then rule on the allegation raised in appellant’s motion. See Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 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 new ruling of the trial court.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
OTT, C.J., and BOARDMAN and DAN-AHY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hyder v. State, 526 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…as enhanced, at least in part, on the basis of a prior uncounseled conviction. If this allegation is true, then appellant may be entitled to relief. See United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443, 92 S.Ct. 589, 30 L.Ed.2d 592 (1972); Washington v. State, 442 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Lloyd v. State, 346 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). The trial court, however, failed to attach portions of the record which conclusively refute appellant’s allegations. Accordingly, we reverse the summary denial of appellant’s…
-
Bryant v. State, 477 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…nor convictions which were the result of involuntary pleas. We affirm the sentence imposed without prejudice to a subsequent challenge of the sentence after successful collateral attacks on the prior misdemeanor convictions. See Washington v. State, 442 So. 2d 382 (Fla.2d DCA 1983); Lawrence v. State, 404 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.3d DCA 1981).…
-
Mann v. Dugger, 817 F.2d 1471 (11th Cir. 1987)…courts consistently held that a defendant could raise for the first time in a Rule 3.850 motion a claim that the trial court enhanced his sentence in reliance on a prior conviction obtained in violation of his right to counsel. Washington v. State, 442 So. 2d 382, 382 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1983); Lofton v. State, 442 So. 2d 1091, 1092 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1983); Johnson v. State, 362 So. 2d 465, 465 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1978); Garcia v. State, 358 So. 2d 561, 561 (Fla.Dist. Ct.App.1978); Lloyd v. State, 346 So. 2d 1075,…
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)
- Johnson v. State, 362 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)