BILL T. GOSNELL, 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 the trial court's summary denial of a postconviction motion alleging breach of a plea bargain to reduce a felony auto theft charge to a misdemeanor, requiring the trial court to either provide record evidence refuting the claim or hold an evidentiary hearing.
When a postconviction motion alleges breach of a plea bargain, the trial court must either provide record evidence conclusively refuting the allegation or conduct an evidentiary hearing rather than summarily denying the motion.
[1] A trial court's summary denial of a postconviction motion alleging breach of a plea bargain is improper unless the court attaches record portions conclusively refuting th…
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 Gosnell sought postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, alleging that his felony sentencing violated a plea bar…
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 Felony Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This appeal is from the summary denial of a motion seeking postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Appellant’s first three points in his motion were legally insufficient and were properly denied by the trial court. As to his fourth point, however, appellant alleges that the felony sentencing he received violated a plea bargain in which a felony auto theft charge was to be reduced to a misdemeanor of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. If this allegation is true, appellant might be entitled to postconviction relief. The trial court, however, failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing or attach portions of the record which refute this allegation. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s denial of the above specified allegation in appellant’s motion and remand that portion of the case 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 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). To obtain further review, any aggrieved party must appeal the new ruling of the trial court.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, and REMANDED.
RYDER, C.J., and CAMPBELL and LE-HAN, 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)