HENRY LEE WYNN, 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 reversed in part the trial court's summary denial of a Rule 3.850 postconviction motion regarding an allegedly involuntary guilty plea, requiring the trial court to either conduct an evidentiary hearing or attach record portions conclusively refuting the claim.
A trial court must either conduct an evidentiary hearing on a Rule 3.850 motion alleging an involuntary guilty plea or attach record portions conclusively refuting the allegations, rather than summarily denying the motion without explanation.
[1] A trial court must either conduct an evidentiary hearing on a Rule 3.850 postconviction motion alleging an involuntary guilty plea or attach to its order record portions…
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 Wynn appealed the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 postconviction motion, which raised three grounds for relief, including that his guilty p…
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 Summary Denial cases and more on FLexlaw
DANAHY, Judge.
The appellant appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. He set forth three grounds for relief in his motion. The allegations with respect to ground 1, that the appellant’s guilty plea was entered involuntarily because the appellant was not advised fully of the consequences of that plea, might entitle the appellant to relief. The trial court, however, failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing or attach portions of the record which refute the appellant’s allegations. The trial court was correct in summarily denying the appellant’s motion as to the other grounds asserted therein.
Accordingly, we reverse in part the trial court’s denial of the 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 regarding ground 1 and attach to its order those portions of the record which conclusively show that the appellant is not entitled to relief, or hold an evidentiary hearing and then rule on the allegations set forth in the motion as ground 1. Fla.R. Crim.P. 3.850; Jones v. State, 421 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). To obtain further review, any aggrieved party must appeal the new ruling of the trial court.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.
BOARDMAN, A.C.J., and LEHAN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Netherly v. State, 508 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…ys gain-time thus extending his release date from December 1986 to October 1993. If it is true that he was not told of that consequence, Netherly was entitled to withdraw his plea. Ray v. State, 480 So. 2d 228, 229 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Wynn v. State, 452 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). The transcript of Netherly’s sentencing hearing was attached to his motion but it does not overcome his claim that he was not advised of the effect of his plea. Indeed, the record contains a letter to [*525] Netherly from his p…
Authorities Cited
- Jones v. State, 421 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)