CHARLES JOSEPH CLARK, 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.
Clark appeals the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 postconviction relief motion alleging his guilty plea was induced by counsel's mistaken advice regarding provisional gain time eligibility and that his sentence violated the plea agreement. The appellate court reversed because the trial court failed to comply with procedural requirements for denying such motions without an evidentiary hearing.
The trial court's denial was improper because it failed to comply with Rule 3.850's requirement that when denying a postconviction relief motion without an evidentiary hearing (when the denial is not predicated upon legal insufficiency on its face), the court must attach portions of the files and records that conclusively show the prisoner is entitled to no relief. The quoted excerpts from the change of plea hearing did not conclusively refute Clark's allegations.
[1] A motion for postconviction relief alleging that a plea was induced by counsel's mistaken advice regarding eligibility for provisional gain time may entitle the defendant…
[2] A motion for postconviction relief alleging that a sentence was not in accordance with the plea agreement may entitle the defendant to relief.
Previewing 2 of 6 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 these allegations are true, then Clark may be entitled to relief.”
Establishes that Clark's allegations, if proven, would constitute grounds for postconviction relief, making an evidentiary hearing necessary.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClark filed a postconviction relief motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 claiming his plea was induced by counsel's mistaken advice t…
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 Compliance cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Charles Joseph Clark appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. In the motion, Clark alleged (1) his plea was induced by counsel’s mistaken advice that he would be eligible for provisional gain time and (2) his sentence was not in accordance with the plea agreement. If these allegations are true, then Clark may be entitled to relief. See Tarpley v. State, 566 So. 2d 914 (Fla.2d DCA 1990); Cannon v. State, 548 So. 2d 1182 (Fla.2d DCA 1989).
The trial court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing. Rather than attaching to its order portions of the record that conclusively refute Clark’s allegations, the trial court stated trial counsel had testified at a November 5, 1990 hearing on Clark’s motion that he (trial counsel) did not tell Clark that he would be eligible for provisional gain time credit. In its order, the trial court also quoted excerpts from the transcript of Clark’s change of plea hearing, but failed to attach a copy of the transcript.
Rule 3.850 provides in pertinent part:
In those instances when such denial [without an evidentiary hearing] is not predicated upon the legal insufficiency of the motion on its face, a copy of that portion of the files and records which conclusively shows that the prisoner is entitled to no relief shall be attached to the order. The trial court’s reference to a November 5, 1990, hearing on Clark’s motion and its quotation from Clark’s change of plea hearing do not satisfy the requirements of rule 3.850. Further, the quotation from the change of plea hearing does not conclusively refute Clark’s second allegation.
Accordingly, we reverse the order denying Clark’s motion and remand the case to the trial court. On remand, unless the case files and records conclusively show that Clark 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 Clark’s 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.
RYDER, A.C.J., and DANAHY and FRANK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Plotnick v. State, 576 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…PER CURIAM. Reversed and remanded for an evidentia-ry hearing, or, alternatively, the attachment to any order of denial those portions of the record which affirmatively show that appellant is not entitled to relief. See Clark v. State, 574 So. 2d 1199 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) and Setzer v. State, 575 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). ANSTEAD, GLICKSTEIN and POLEN, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Tarpley v. State, 566 So. 2d 914 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- Cannon v. State, 548 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)