JOHNNIE LOFTON, 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 either conduct an evidentiary hearing or attach record portions refuting specific allegations in the postconviction relief motion.
Appellant sought postconviction relief, alleging he was misinformed about parole eligibility and sentence enhancement based on an uncounseled convicti…
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 Convictions cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1092] OTT, Chief Judge.
This appeal is from the summary denial of a motion seeking postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Appellant raised several points in the motion. The allegations in paragraph 1, that appellant was misinformed about when he could expect to be paroled if he pled guilty, and that he would receive no incarceration time in exchange for a plea of nolo contendere, if true, would entitle appellant to relief. See Ramsey v. State, 408 So. 2d 675 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Tillman v. State, 203 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967). Also, the allegation in paragraph 2 that an uncounseled conviction was used to enhance his sentence, if true, would entitle him to relief. Johnson v. State, 362 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). The trial court, however, failed to either conduct an evidentiary hearing or attach portions of the record which refute those 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 as to the allegations specified, and attach to its order those portions of the record which conclusively show appellant is not entitled to relief, or hold an evidentiary hearing and then rule on the grounds alleged in the above portion of the motion.
To obtain further review, any aggrieved party must appeal the new ruling of the trial court. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850. See also Jones v. State, 421 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), and Van Bever v. State, 405 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).
The trial judge was correct in denying the appellant’s motion as to the other points raised therein.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, and REMANDED.
BOARDMAN and DANAHY, 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)
- Ramsey v. State, 408 So. 2d 675 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Johnson v. State, 362 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)
- Tillman v. State, 203 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)