SHARYON SANDERS, 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.
Court reversed summary denial of post-conviction relief motion where appellant alleged trial court violated plea agreement by imposing undisclosed consecutive mandatory minimum sentences, holding that trial court must either attach record evidence refuting the claim or conduct an evidentiary hearing.
When a defendant alleges a plea agreement violation regarding undisclosed mandatory minimum sentences, the trial court must either conduct an evidentiary hearing or attach record evidence conclusively refuting the claim rather than summarily denying the motion.
[1] A trial court's summary denial of a post-conviction relief motion alleging plea agreement violation must be accompanied by record evidence conclusively refuting the claim…
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 intelligence“If this allegation is true, appellant might be entitled to post-conviction relief.”
Court's analysis of whether the plea agreement violation claim warranted relief
Appellant Sanders pleaded guilty to charges with an agreed twenty-five year sentence but was also sentenced to two consecutive three-year mandatory mi…
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
RYDER, Chief Judge.
This appeal is from the summary denial of a motion seeking post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Appellant alleges that the court violated his plea agreement by sentencing him to the agreed twenty-five years imprisonment but also imposing two consecutive three year minimum mandatory sentences of which appellant was unaware. If this allegation is true, appellant might be entitled to post-conviction relief. Richmond v. State, 375 So. 2d 1132 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Norris v. State, 343 So. 2d 964 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). The trial court, however, failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing or attach to its order a transcript of the hearing where appellant pled guilty which would refute this allegation.
Accordingly, we reverse 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 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; Jones v. State, 421 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); 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. Reversed and remanded with instructions.
GRIMES and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Washington v. State, 510 So. 2d 355 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…court’s denial, without prejudice to appellant to raise the voluntariness of his plea in a motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See Kays v. State, 476 So. 2d 317 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Sanders v. State, 462 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Appellant next contends that the trial court did not provide clear and convincing reasons for departing from the guidelines. The trial court’s first two reasons for departure are invalid. A defendant’s failure to appear for sent…
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)
- Richmond v. State, 375 So. 2d 1132 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
- Norris v. State, 343 So. 2d 964 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)