JAMES GREEN, APPELLANT,
v.
RICHARD L. DUGGER AND 13TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, APPELLEES
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.
The court held that the trial court erred in summarily denying the defendant's motion for postconviction relief regarding a potential plea agreement violation, but properly denied relief on the claim that the sentence exceeded the legal maximum.
[1] A trial court must attach sufficient documentation from the record to refute a defendant's claim of a violated plea agreement when summarily denying postconviction relief…
[2] If a defendant alleges that a plea agreement was violated by the addition of probation to a prison sentence, and the record does not conclusively refute this claim, an ev…
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 intelligenceDefendant pleaded guilty to armed robbery with an understanding of a 17-year sentence, but the court also imposed 10 years of probation to commence th…
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 Split Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
James Green appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief. We previously authorized belated appellate review pursuant to State ex rel. Shevin v. District Court of Appeal, Third District, 316 So. 2d 50 (Fla.1975), and now affirm the trial court’s order in part and reverse in part.
Green entered a plea of guilty to armed robbery. In his motion he alleges that he did so with the understanding he would receive a sentence of seventeen years in prison. While this is the sentence that was imposed, the court also included a term of ten years probation to commence at the expiration of the prison sentence. Green complains that this was not part of the plea agreement and that he was not forewarned that the court could consider the option of consecutive probation. If this allegation is true Green might be entitled to relief. Orleman v. State, 527 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). In denying the motion, the trial court failed to attach sufficient documentation from the record to refute this particular claim.
After remand the trial court should re-examine the files and records in this case in an effort to determine whether anything therein conclusively refutes Green’s claim that his plea agreement was violated by the addition of probation to his sentence. If such record evidence can be located, the court may again deny the motion, attaching the exhibits to its order. Otherwise an evidentiary hearing may be necessary to resolve this portion of Green’s motion. Should the court determine that Green’s allegations are factually correct, it should vacate the probationary portion of the split sentence or, if unwilling to do so, afford Green an opportunity to withdraw the plea.
Green also asserts that the sentence is “in excess of the maximum allowed by law.” There is no merit to this contention, and the trial court properly denied relief on this ground. See Committee Note, Fla.R. Crim.P. 3.701(d)(12).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and LEHAN and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Eggers v. State, 624 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…he court’s intent. Failure to do so [*338] may require remand for resentencing within the terms of the plea agreement, or to afford the option of withdrawing the plea. Jefferson v. State, 515 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). See also Green v. Bugger, 575 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Both Jefferson and Green involve appeals from summary denials of rule 3.850 motions. In each case, the respective appellant challenged the imposition of probation in addition to the period of incarceration contemplated by a plea…
-
Hettick v. State, 977 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…ug offender probation of any length. Generally, however, a defendant’s understanding of the significance and consequences of his or her plea cannot be determined solely from the document’s silence as to a particular term. See, e.g., Green v. Dugger, 575 So. 2d 750, 751 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (remanding for the court to re-examine the record to determine whether the defendant’s plea agreement was violated by the addition of probation to his sentence and observing that an evidentiary hearing might be required); Egg…
-
Brown v. State, 647 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…elieved, mistakenly, that the plea agreement contemplated a split sentence which would fall within the guidelines. Such an allegation has been found legally sufficient. See, e.g., Eggers v. State, 624 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Green v. Dugger, 575 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Jefferson v. State, 515 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Accordingly, the trial court’s ruling was incorrect with regard to the second ground asserted. As his third ground, appellant asserts that he was denied effective assistanc…
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
- State of Fla. ex rel. Robert L. Shevin v. The Dist. Court OF Appeal of Fla., 316 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 1975)
- Orleman v. State, 527 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)