R.C. STEWART, 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.
R.C. Stewart appealed the trial court's denial of his motion for post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The court affirmed, holding that most of Stewart's claims were procedurally barred or legally insufficient, and that his claim regarding improper scoring of uncounseled misdemeanor convictions in his sentencing guidelines could and should have been raised on direct appeal.
The court affirmed the trial court's denial of the entire motion. The plea was voluntary and counsel's performance was adequate; the court was not bound by the prosecutor's sentencing recommendation; and the claim regarding improper scoring of uncounseled convictions is not cognizable in a 3.850 motion because it is a factual determination that could and should have been raised on direct appeal as a sentencing error.
[1] A plea is voluntary when the defendant expresses satisfaction with counsel's performance and the plea hearing transcript reflects no coercion.
[2] A prosecutor's recommendation of a sentence does not bind the court, and the court is not obligated to allow a defendant to withdraw a plea when the recommendation is mad…
Previewing 2 of 6 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“the court was not bound by that recommendation and was under no duty to allow appellant to withdraw his plea”
Establishes that the trial court has discretion to reject a prosecutor's sentencing recommendation even when part of a plea agreement.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceStewart filed a motion for post-conviction relief raising nine grounds, including challenges to the voluntariness of his plea, his attorney's performa…
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 Uncounseled Misdemeanor Conviction cases and more on FLexlaw
WIGGINTON, Judge.
We have for review the trial court’s order denying appellant’s motion for post-conviction relief, holding the motion and the files and record in the case conclusively show the defendant is entitled to no relief, and that the motion is legally insufficient on its face. We affirm.
We affirm the denial of the motion as it relates to grounds one through six, and grounds eight and nine. The attached transcript of the plea hearing shows that the plea was voluntarily given and that appellant was satisfied with his attorney’s performance. Hagans v. State, 492 So. 2d 753 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Seymour v. State, 359 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978).
Moreover, because the plea bargain was one for the prosecutor’s recommendation of a certain sentence, and the transcript shows that the prosecutor fulfilled the agreement by making the recommendation, the court was not bound by that recommendation and was under no duty to allow appellant to withdraw his plea. State v. Adams, 342 So. 2d 818 (Fla.1977); cf Wood v. State, 357 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).
Finally, trial counsel’s failure to appeal is not an issue properly raised by a 3.850 motion. Simmons v. State, 364 So. 2d 869 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). The remainder of the motion, other than ground seven, is legally insufficient insofar as it raises issues which could or should have been raised on appeal or are totally unrelated to appellant’s judgment and sentence, fails to set forth sufficient facts, and alleges factual errors preceding entry of the plea.
We also affirm the denial of the motion as it relates to ground seven, alleging that uncounseled misdemeanor convictions were improperly scored in calculating appellant’s guidelines sentence. It is the rule that an uncounseled conviction, absent waiver of counsel, will not support a finding of guilt or an increased term of imprisonment on a subsequent conviction. See Harrell v. State, 469 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); and Allen v. State, 463 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).
It is also true that the improper scoring of uncounseled misdemeanor convictions in arriving at a defendant’s guidelines sentence has been the subject of a direct appeal in Crigler v. State, 487 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), and has been collaterally attacked by a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in Pettway v. State, 502 So. 2d 1353 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987).
Accordingly, this Court requested the State to file a brief addressing, inter alia, the question whether the scoring of uncounseled misdemeanor convictions may be raised for the first time by a motion for post-conviction relief.
The State responded that this issue could not be raised by a rule 3.850 motion. Although recognizing that the supreme court in State v. Chaplin, 490 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 1986), and State v. Whitfield, 487 So. 2d 1045 (Fla.1986), permitted correction of scoresheet errors at any time by amending Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.800(a), the State distinguishes those holdings on the basis that they involved technical computational errors readily apparent on the face of the record. Instead, it relies on the position taken by our sister court in the Second District that “where the error complained of would require an evidentiary determination ... the rule change announced in Whitfield is inapplicable.” Lomont v. State, 506 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987).
Thus, in Lomont, wherein by 3.850 motion the defendant claimed that he was improperly scored for three prior felony convictions when he had only one, the court affirmed the trial court’s denial of the motion on the basis that the issue was one that could or should have been objected to at sentencing and made the subject of direct appeal. Alternatively, the court observed that had the defendant advised counsel of the error, and had counsel failed to make an objection, the defendant could have pursued a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel cognizable in a 3.850 motion.
We agree with the State that the type of error complained of by appellant is not a simple computational error, and, thus, Chaplin and Whitfield do not apply to this case. Compare also Holland v. State, 508 So. 2d 5 (Fla.1987). As was true in Lomont, and as is evidenced in Crigler, this issue is one that could or should have been objected to at sentencing and made the subject of a direct appeal, and is therefore not cognizable on motion for post-conviction relief.
AFFIRMED.
JOANOS and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Rackley v. State, 571 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…ns that claims of either ineffective assistance of counsel or coercion are refuted by oral statements to the contrary made at a sentencing hearing, or by written statements to the contrary contained in a negotiated plea. See, e.g., Stewart v. State, 511 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Hagans v. State, 492 So. 2d 753 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Thomas v. State, 419 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Loconte v. State, 382 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). Appellant’s written negotiated plea contains statements that he was…
-
Eady v. State, 604 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…uted by oral statements to the contrary as reflected in the transcript of a sentencing hearing, or by written statements to the contrary contained in a negotiated plea. See Rackley v. State, 571 So. 2d 533, 535 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Stewart v. State, 511 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Hagans v. State, 492 So. 2d 753 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Similarly, allegations that counsel failed to inform the defendant regarding his eligibility for various types of gain-time are insufficient to warrant post-conviction relief,…
-
Mantle v. State, 592 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)…he state fulfills its obligations to recommend the agreed to sentence. See State v. Adams, 342 So. 2d 818 (Fla.1977); Green v. State, 580 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); [*1193] Johnson v. State, 541 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Stewart v. State, 511 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Little v. State, 492 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Lepper v. State, 451 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). However, if the record reveals a reasonable basis to conclude that a defendant was misled by a statement at the plea hear…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (14 total)
- State v. Whitfield, 487 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 1986)
- Lomont v. State, 506 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- State v. Chaplin, 490 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 1986)
- State v. Adams, 342 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 1977)
- Allen v. State, 463 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Bush Wade Holland v. State, 508 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 1987)
- Harrell v. State, 469 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Wood v. State, 357 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- Hagans v. State, 492 So. 2d 753 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Stevens v. State, 502 So. 2d 1353 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)