CHARLES GRIFFIN, 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.
Court reversed denial of Rule 3.850 motion to vacate conviction for aggravated battery where trial judge failed to hold evidentiary hearing or attach record portions to refute claims of coerced plea and jail time credit entitlement.
When a defendant alleges an involuntary plea in a Rule 3.850 motion, the trial court must either hold an evidentiary hearing or attach record portions conclusively refuting the claim; denial without such procedure is reversible error.
[1] When a defendant alleges involuntary entry of plea in a Rule 3.850 motion, trial court must hold evidentiary hearing or attach record portions conclusively refuting claim…
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 intelligence“Since the allegation that a plea was involuntarily entered is a legally sufficient ground for post-conviction relief, the order must be reversed.”
Court explaining why trial court's summary denial without hearing was improper
Defendant Griffin filed a Rule 3.850 motion claiming his plea to aggravated battery was coerced by his attorney and that he was entitled to additional…
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 Coerced Guilty Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Judge.
Defendant filed a Rule 3.850 motion seeking to vacate his conviction for aggravated battery on the ground that his plea was coerced by his attorney. Defendant also claims he was entitled to additional jail time credit. The trial judge denied the defendant’s motion without holding an evidentiary hearing or attaching portions of the record to refute the defendant’s claims. In such circumstances, review is limited to determining whether the motion on its face conclusively shows that the defendant is not entitled to relief. Since the allegation that a plea was involuntarily entered is a legally sufficient ground for post-conviction relief, the order must be reversed. See Mikenas v. State, 460 So. 2d 359 (Fla.1984); Smothers v. State, 555 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). The state’s attempt to cure the trial court’s oversight by supplementing the record on appeal is improper. See Smothers, Id. Since the record before this court also fails to refute the defendant’s claim that he is entitled to additional jail time credit, the issue should also be addressed by the trial court. On remand, the trial court can attach and incorporate portions of the record which con clusively show that the defendant is entitled to no relief or order the state to answer the motion and hold an evidentiary hearing if appropriate.
REVERSED and REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.
W. SHARP and COWART, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Siegel v. State, 586 So. 2d 1341 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…its face conclusively demonstrates that the defendant is not entitled to relief. We conclude that if appellant’s allegation that his plea was involuntarily entered is true, there exists sufficient ground for post-conviction relief. Griffin v. State, 573 So. 2d 979 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Shell v. State, supra; Simmons v. State, supra. Compare Dean v. State, 580 So. 2d 808 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). Accordingly, it was error for the trial court to deny appellant relief without either conducting an evidentiary hearing or…
-
McCLAIN v. State, 629 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…ortions of the record refuting the allegations of a rule 3.850 motion cannot be remedied on appeal by the state’s attempt to furnish material refuting the prisoner’s claims. See Thames v. State, 454 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Griffin v. State, 573 So. 2d 979 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). The appendix provided by the state in this case was not [*322] considered by the trial court in ruling on the motion for post-conviction relief, and cannot be considered by this court in determining the propriety of the trial co…
-
Smith v. State, 582 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…tate, 545 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). . See Kennedy v. State, 547 So. 2d 912 (Fla.1989); Gorham v. State, 521 So. 2d 1067 (Fla.1988); Squires v. State, 513 So. 2d 138 (Fla.1987); Harich v. State, 484 So. 2d 1239 (Fla.1986). . Griffin v. State, 573 So. 2d 979 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Smothers v. State, 555 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990).…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Mikenas v. State, 460 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 1984)
- Smothers v. State, 555 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- Elliott R. Subervi v. Hon. Jeffords D. Miller, 555 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)