DONNELL WILSON, 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.
Donnell Wilson appealed the denial of his postconviction motion to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming he entered the plea with a misunderstanding about the sentence he would receive. The court reversed and remanded for further proceedings regarding whether Wilson adequately understood the possible consequences of his plea before entering it.
The trial court's denial of Wilson's postconviction motion to withdraw his plea was reversed. The court held that the exhibits attached to the trial court's order fail to refute Wilson's claim that his plea was entered without adequate understanding of possible consequences, and remanded for the trial court to determine whether the record conclusively demonstrates Wilson was made aware of the harsher possible sentence.
[1] A guilty plea may be withdrawn if it was entered without an adequate understanding of the possible consequences.
[2] A written plea agreement form that does not specify the substance of plea negotiations fails to refute a claim of misunderstanding.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 true, Wilson could have adequate grounds to withdraw his plea.”
Establishes the legal standard that a defendant may withdraw a guilty plea if it was entered without adequate understanding of consequences based on misrepresentations about sentencing.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilson is serving a 27-year prison sentence followed by 30 years probation. He claims he entered his guilty plea with the understanding he would recei…
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 Open Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
[*734] PER CURIAM.
Donnell Wilson appeals the denial of his motion for postconviction relief. We reverse for further proceedings with regard to one issue presented in the motion.
Wilson, who is serving a sentence of twenty-seven years in prison followed by thirty years probation, alleges that he entered his plea of guilty with the understanding he would receive a sentence of no more than four and one-half years (and without consecutive probation) and that certain charges would be dropped. If true, Wilson could have adequate grounds to withdraw his plea. See, e.g., McLendon v. State, 502 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987).
The exhibits attached to the trial court’s order fail to refute the claim that Wilson’s plea was entered without an adequate understanding of the possible consequences. First, there is a written plea agreement form signed by Wilson which indicates no promises or threats “[ojther than the prior plea negotiations entered into by your attorney, the State Attorney’s Office, and the court,” but which does not specify the substance of any such negotiations. Second, the court provided a transcript of a July 1989 hearing at which defense counsel indicated Wilson would enter “an open plea.” Wilson does not appear to have been present during these discussions. Finally, the court appears to have conducted a hearing on the motion itself, again without Wilson present. Defense counsel’s statements at this hearing suggest, but do not unequivocally establish, that the more lenient sentence was a possibility rather than an outright promise. The record does not contain a plea colloquy.
After remand the trial court should reexamine the files and records to determine whether anything therein conclusively demonstrates that Wilson was made aware he could receive the harsher sentence. If not, an evidentiary hearing may be necessary to establish just what Wilson was told and what he understood. If this is the alternative chosen by the court, it is probably advisable for Wilson to be present. Cf. Cintron v. State, 508 So. 2d 1315 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (where facts are disputed, those adverse to defendant should be subject to confrontation).
The remaining issues presented by Wilson’s motion are without merit and the trial court properly denied relief on those grounds.
Reversed.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Thornburg v. State, 591 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…dant would not have entered the plea if his attorney had not made the misstatement. Id., citing Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 60, 106 S.Ct. 366, 371, 88 L.Ed.2d 203, 211 (1985); Duggan v. State, 588 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Wilson v. State, 559 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). A plea bargain may serve as a clear and convincing reason for a departure sentence, when the departure reason was accepted as an integral part of the bargain itself. See Smith v. State, 530 So. 2d 304 (Fla.1988); Quarterman v. S…
-
Prezell Wilson v. State, 593 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…prisonment as a habitual felony offender. Mr. Wilson alleges he did not know that he had been sentenced as a habitual felony offender until he was in prison. If this allegation is true, then Mr. Wilson may be entitled to relief. See Wilson v. State, 559 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); McLendon v. State, 502 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). The trial judge, however, failed to attach to his order any portion of the files or record to refute Mr. Wilson’s allegation. Accordingly, we reverse the order denying Mr. W…
-
Colon v. State, 619 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)…oes not mention any mandatory sentence. The court did discuss the applicability of section ■ 775.087 with defense counsel, but there is no evidence Colon (who appears to have relied upon an interpreter) was addressed personally. Cf. Wilson v. State, 559 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). Accordingly, this case must be reversed for further proceedings. Unless it can be established from the record that Colon personally acknowledged he was subject to the provisions of section 775.087, the trial court should permit…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cintron v. State, 508 So. 2d 1315 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- DeWayne R. McLENDON v. State, 502 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Willis v. Dicieco, 502 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)