FRANK C. SALEMI, 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.
Frank Salemi appealed the summary denial of his postconviction relief motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, claiming his guilty plea to probation violations was involuntary due to ineffective counsel. The court reversed in part and remanded, finding one allegation facially sufficient to require an evidentiary hearing.
The court held that Salemi's allegation was facially sufficient and that the trial court's attachment of the plea form from the initial 1989 charges did not conclusively refute his claim regarding the involuntariness of his probation violation plea. The case was reversed in part and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on this issue.
[1] A motion for postconviction relief may be denied without an evidentiary hearing only if the files and records conclusively refute the allegations.
[2] A guilty plea to a probation violation may be deemed involuntary if induced by counsel's mistaken advice regarding sentencing.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“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.”
Establishes that the trial court's attachment of the initial plea form was insufficient to summarily deny relief on the involuntariness claim.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn August 1989, Salemi pleaded nolo contendere to three counts of sexual activity with a child and received concurrent 20-year sentences suspended to …
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 Guidelines Departure Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Frank C. Salemi appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
In August 1989, Salemi pleaded nolo con-tendere to three counts of engaging in sexual activity with a child. Pursuant to plea negotiations, Salemi was sentenced to concurrent terms of twenty years’ incarceration, which were suspended to one year community control, to be followed by nineteen years’ probation. The sentences were departures from the guidelines range of twelve to seventeen years’ incarceration. Salemi filed an unsuccessful motion for mitigation and reduction of the sentences, but did not otherwise appeal or collaterally attack the judgments and sentences.
In November 1989, the trial court revoked Salemi’s probation for alleged technical violations and sentenced him to three concurrent terms of twenty years’ incarceration, with credit for time served. Salemi apparently pleaded guilty to the probation violations. He did not appeal the revocation of probation or the sentences.
In June 1990, Salemi filed his motion pursuant to rule 3.850 and alleged four grounds for relief, only one of which is facially sufficient. Specifically, Salemi alleged that his plea to the violation of probation charges was involuntary and that his trial counsel was ineffective because counsel led him to believe that if he pleaded guilty to the violations, the court would sentence him to twenty years imprisonment, suspended to two years’ “house arrest,” followed by eighteen years’ probation. The trial court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing, and attached the written plea form signed by Salemi when 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 that Salemi 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 Salemi’s allegation. Any party aggrieved by the subsequent action of the trial court must file a notite of appeal within thirty days to obtain appellate review.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and FRANK and PARKER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Salemi v. State, 636 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…t of providing a significant downward departure. See DeRicciulli v. State, 592 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). Thereafter, Mr. Salemi violated community control and received three concurrent terms of twenty years’ imprisonment. See Salemi v. State, 573 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Mr. Salemi now claims that the supreme court’s subsequent decision in Karchesky v. State, 591 So. 2d 930 (Fla.1992), requires the elimination of the 120 points for victim injury, and that he would not have agreed to the suspended…
Authorities Cited
- Sawyers v. State, 566 So. 2d 942 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)