MICHAEL RUFFIN ADAMS, 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.
Michael Ruffin Adams appealed the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 postconviction relief motion alleging his sentences violated a plea agreement. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing, finding the trial court improperly denied the motion without attaching materials that conclusively showed Adams was entitled to no relief.
An allegation of sentence imposed in violation of an accepted plea agreement is a legally sufficient basis for Rule 3.850 relief. When legally sufficient grounds are stated, the trial court must either attach copies of file portions conclusively showing the prisoner is entitled to no relief or hold an evidentiary hearing. The trial court's attached copies of judgments and sentences did not conclusively show Adams was not sentenced in violation of a plea agreement.
[1] A trial court's summary denial of a motion for postconviction relief is improper if the attached file does not conclusively show the prisoner is entitled to no relief.
[2] An allegation that a sentence was imposed in violation of an accepted plea agreement constitutes a legally sufficient basis for postconviction relief.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“An allegation of imposition of sentence in violation of an accepted plea agreement is a legally sufficient basis for relief by a 3.850 motion.”
Establishes that plea agreement violations are cognizable grounds for postconviction relief under Rule 3.850.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAdams pled guilty on December 22, 1981, to armed robbery without use of a firearm and received concurrent 30-year sentences. On March 19, 1982, he ple…
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 Violation Of Plea Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLS, Judge.
Adams appeals from the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief. The summary denial was improper because the portion of the file attached by the trial court in support of its order does not “conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief.” Rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. We reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing on Adams’ motion.
On 22 December 1981, Adams pled guilty to separate counts of armed robbery without the use of a firearm. He received concurrent sentences of 30 years. On 19 March 1982, Adams pled guilty to two counts of armed robbery, two counts of carrying a concealed firearm and three counts of possession of methaqualone. He was sentenced by a different judge to two concurrent 30-year terms on the armed robbery counts, and to five concurrent five-year terms on the rest of the charges. The 19 March sentences were to run concurrently with each other and with the sentences received on 22 December. In his motion, Adams alleges that the 19 March sentences for armed robbery were imposed in violation of a plea agreement, wherein he agreed to plead guilty in exchange for a reduction of four counts of armed robbery to four counts of armed robbery without use of a firearm. He alleges that while the 22 December sentences reflected the plea agreement, the 19 March sentences did not, despite the second judge’s acknowledgment of and agreement to abide by it. The trial court denied the motion, attaching copies of the judgments and sentences entered against Adams.
An allegation of imposition of sentence in violation of an accepted plea agreement is a legally sufficient basis for relief by a 3.850 motion. Howard v. State, 417 So. 2d 1152, 1153 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). When legally sufficient grounds are stated in the motion, the court must either attach “copies of that portion of the files and records which conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief,” Rule 3.850, or hold an evidentiary hearing on the allegations of the motion. Howard, supra. Here, the copies of the judgments and sentences provided by the trial court do not conclusively show that Adams was not sentenced in violation of a plea agreement.
The order of the trial court summarily denying Adams’ motion is reversed, and the case is remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the allegation contained therein.
SHIVERS and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.