CARLOS LORENZO JACKSON, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed summary denial of post-conviction relief motion and remanded for evidentiary hearing where defendant claimed his guilty pleas were involuntary based on misunderstanding about consecutive sentencing.
When a defendant claims his guilty plea was involuntary due to a misunderstanding about sentencing consequences, an evidentiary hearing is required rather than summary denial.
[1] A trial court must conduct an evidentiary hearing on a Rule 3.850 post-conviction motion alleging involuntary guilty plea based on misunderstanding of sentencing conseque…
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 intelligenceJackson was charged with multiple serious felonies including kidnapping, sexual battery, robbery, and burglary. He entered guilty pleas to most charge…
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 Standard Of Appellate Review cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was charged with three counts of kidnapping, two counts of sexual battery, two counts of robbery, burglary of a conveyance, petty theft and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. He entered a guilty plea to all the charges except one count of sexual battery, to which he entered a no contest plea. The trial court sentenced appellant to consecutive terms of imprisonment, as follows: seven life terms, four three-year minimum mandatory terms, and one five year term. Appellant filed a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 3.850, Fla.R. Crim.P., on grounds that his pleas were involuntarily entered pursuant to his understanding that he would not receive consecutive sentences. This appeal is from the trial court’s summary denial of the motion without an evidentiary hearing.
Rule 9.140(g), Fla.R.App.P., governs this appeal and under said rule this court is required to reverse for an evidentiary hearing “unless the record shows conclusively that the appellant is entitled to no relief.” After having considered the record and the specially permitted briefs and arguments of counsel, we find that an evidentiary hearing was necessary in this case. See Clark v. State, 256 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972); Williams v. State, 245 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971). This cause is therefore remanded for a hearing.
Remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Regan v. State, 730 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…d refutes Mr. Regan’s allegation that, based on his counsel’s advice, he had a mistaken belief that all of his sentences would ran concurrently. See Smith, 718 So. 2d at 225; Gessner v. State, 691 So. 2d 48, 49 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Jackson v. State, 442 So. 2d 1070, 1070 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). The statement in the written plea agreement that “no threats or promises have been made to cause [Mr. Regan] to enter this plea,” does not conclusively refute his claim that his attorney misadvised him that his sentences w…
-
Hightower v. State, 650 So. 2d 1086 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…nder rule 3.850. Bryant v. State, 355 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Schroeder v. State, 641 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Allen v. State, 616 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Patterson v. State, 611 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Jackson v. State, 442 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). The trial court’s attachments to its final order — consisting of excerpts from the plea hearing during which Hightower told the judge that he wished to be sentenced the same day and agreed that his lawyer had explained the guilty…
-
Smith v. State, 718 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…tion was improper as to claim that counsel may have misled defendant to believe that he would be eligible for incentive gain-time and that his state sentences would run concurrently with any subsequently imposed federal sentences); Jackson v. State, 442 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (summary denial of motion for postcon-viction-relief was improper, where defendant alleged that his guilty plea was involuntarily entered based on his mistaken understanding that he would not receive consecutive sentences). Like t…
Authorities Cited
- Clark v. State, 256 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)
- Theophilus Williams v. State, 245 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)