DONALD BRUCE HINES, 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 summarily denying the defendant's motion for post-conviction relief without conducting an evidentiary hearing or attaching record portions refuting the allegations.
Defendant appealed the summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief, alleging the trial court failed to properly inform him of the nature o…
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 Guilty Plea Colloquy cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1179] PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals from the summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Defendant raises two points in his motion. The second point, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, has no merit. Knight v. State, 394 So. 2d 997 (Fla.1981).
However, in his first point, defendant claims that, prior to accepting defendant’s guilty plea, the trial court failed to personally inform defendant about the nature of the charge against him and the consequences of his guilty plea and about his rights to remain silent and to confront witnesses. Defendant’s allegation, if true, might be contrary to the requirements of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.172 and might entitle defendant to relief. The trial court, however, failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing or to attach portions of the record which refute the allegation.
Accordingly, the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion is reversed and the case is remanded to the trial court. On remand, the trial court may either again summarily deny the motion as to the allegation specified and attach to its order those portions of the record which conclusively show that defendant is not entitled to relief or hold an evidentiary hearing and then rule on the allegations presented in the motion. See Halpin v. State, 428 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
OTT, C. J., and CAMPBELL and LEHAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Knight v. State, 394 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 1981)
- Halpin v. State, 428 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)