TOMMY DEAN SAWYERS, 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.
Sawyers appealed the summary denial of his 3.850 motion for postconviction relief, alleging his counsel was ineffective and his guilty plea involuntary because counsel promised concurrent sentencing but failed to object when the court imposed consecutive sentences. The appellate court reversed, finding the record did not conclusively refute Sawyers' allegation and remanded for an evidentiary hearing.
The court reversed the summary denial of Sawyers' first allegation of ineffective counsel and remanded for an evidentiary hearing because the record excerpts did not conclusively refute the allegation that counsel's promise of concurrent sentences induced the guilty plea.
[1] A defendant's claim of an involuntary plea based on reliance on defense counsel's affirmative misinformation about the actual length of time the defendant would spend in…
[2] A trial court must conduct an evidentiary hearing on a motion for postconviction relief when the motion alleges that defense counsel promised the defendant credit for spe…
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“only the first is facially sufficient. Sawyers alleged that his counsel was ineffective, and that his guilty plea was therefore involuntary, as a result of counsel's failure to object when the trial court sentenced him to a consecutive term of imprisonment after counsel had promised Sawyers that his sentence in the present case would be concurrent with other sentences imposed on the same day.”
States the allegation found to have facial sufficiency for postconviction review
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSawyers pleaded guilty and was sentenced to a consecutive term of imprisonment. Sawyers alleged that his counsel had promised him his sentence would b…
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 Concurrent Vs. Consecutive Sentences cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Tommy Dean Sawyers appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
Of the two allegations for relief in his motion, only the first is facially sufficient. Sawyers alleged that his counsel was ineffective, and that his guilty plea was therefore involuntary, as a result of counsel’s failure to object when the trial court sentenced him to a consecutive term of imprisonment after counsel had promised Sawyers that his sentence in the present case would be concurrent with other sentences imposed on the same day. The trial court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing and attached excerpts from two hearings. These portions of the record, however, do not conclusively refute Sawyers’ allegation that his plea was induced by counsel’s promise of concurrent sentences. See Costello v. State, 260 So. 2d 198 (Fla.1972); Lonergan v. State, 495 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 501 So. 2d 1282 (Fla.1986); Ray v. State, 480 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).
Accordingly, we reverse the denial of this allegation in Sawyers’ motion and remand the case to the trial court. On remand, unless the case files and records conclusively show that Sawyers is not entitled to relief, the trial court shall order the state to file an answer. After receipt of the answer, the trial court shall determine whether an evidentiary hearing is required. If the trial court should summarily deny the motion again, it shall attach such portions of the record which conclusively refute Sawyers’ allegations. Any party aggrieved by the subsequent action of the trial court must file a notice of appeal within thirty days to obtain appellate review.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and PARKER and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Carter v. State, 67 So. 3d 242 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…her alleged that had he known that his HVFO sentence would be run consecutively to the existing sentence, he would not have pleaded but would have proceeded to trial. Mr. Carter presented a facially sufficient claim for relief. See Sawyers v. State, 566 So. 2d 942, 942 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Lang v. State, 758 So. 2d 1219, 1219-20 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). The post-conviction court denied the claim, finding that it was not supported by the transcript of the plea hearing, which did not contain any mention of concurren…
-
Salemi v. State, 573 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…he pleaded nolo contendere to the initial charges in August 1989. This does not conclusively refute Salemi’s allegation that his guilty plea to the probation violations was involuntarily given on the mistaken advice of counsel. See Sawyers v. State, 566 So. 2d 942 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). Accordingly, we reverse that part of the order denying this allegation in Salemi’s motion, affirm the remainder of the order, and remand the case to the trial court. On remand, unless the case files and records conclusively show…
-
Anfield v. State, 576 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…f twelve years’ imprisonment, but was sentenced to concurrent terms of twenty-seven years’ imprisonment, with consecutive three-year minimum mandatory sentences imposed on four of the fourteen counts to which he pleaded guilty. See Sawyers v. State, 566 So. 2d 942 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). The trial court denied the motion without an eviden-tiary hearing, but did not attach to the order any portion of the files or record to refute these allegations. Accordingly, we reverse the order deny-' ing Anfield’s motion an…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Costello v. State, 260 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 1972)
- RAY v. State, 480 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Lonergan v. State, 495 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)