MICHAEL A. BARFIELD, 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 trial court's summary denial of a Rule 3.850 postconviction motion was reversed and remanded because the court failed to address whether the plea agreement included a prosecution silence stipulation, whether a pre-sentence investigation report was properly disclosed, and whether the defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel.
A trial court's summary denial of a Rule 3.850 postconviction motion must be reversed when the record does not conclusively show the defendant is entitled to no relief, and an evidentiary hearing must be conducted to address specific claims of plea agreement breach, PSI disclosure violations, and ineffective assistance of counsel.
[1] A trial court must either attach portions of the record conclusively showing a defendant is entitled to no relief on a Rule 3.850 motion or conduct an evidentiary hearing…
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 Barfield filed a Rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief raising claims about his negotiated plea agreement, pre-sentence investigation …
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 Plea Agreement Enforcement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The order of the trial court summarily denying the appellant’s 3.850 motion is reversed and remanded for further consistent proceedings. On remand, the trial court is directed either to attach those portions of the record which conclusively show the appellant is entitled to no relief, or, if such a showing cannot be determined from the face of the record, conduct an evidentiary hearing. The court should specifically address the following issues raised by appellant in his motion for postconviction relief: (1) Whether the terms of the negotiated plea agreement include the prosecution’s agreement to remain mute during sentencing, and, if so, whether the state complied with this stipulation? (2) Whether a pre-sentence investigation report (PSI) was considered by the court in sentencing, and, if it was considered, was the appellant prejudiced by the court’s failure to disclose to the defense all factual material in the PSI a reasonable time prior to sentencing, pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.713? (3) Whether the appellant was denied effective assistance of counsel because of defense counsel’s failure to object to either of these alleged errors?
REVERSED and REMANDED.
ERVIN, THOMPSON and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Moore v. State, 768 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…opportunity to object to the sentencing without ... investigation ... [but] failed to do so.” Harden v. State, 290 So. 2d 551, 551 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); see Wilkerson v. State, 583 So. 2d 428, 428-429 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). See also Barfield v. State, 524 So. 2d 733, 733 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)(revers-ing denial of a motion for post-conviction relief with directions that the trial court “specifically address” whether “a presen-tence investigation report (PSI) was considered by the court in sentencing”). Mr. Moore’…