BILLY HERNANDEZ CAMERON, 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.
The court affirmed the denial of claims regarding involuntary guilty plea and ineffective assistance of counsel but reversed the denial of the habitual offender sentencing claim, remanding for the trial court to demonstrate compliance with statutory procedural safeguards or take further action.
A trial court's summary denial of post-conviction relief on grounds of involuntary plea and ineffective assistance of counsel is proper when the written plea contains statements confirming voluntary entry and satisfaction with counsel, but summary denial on habitual offender sentencing grounds requires the court to affirmatively show compliance with statutory procedures or remand for further proceedings.
[1] A trial court must affirmatively demonstrate in the record that an appellant is entitled to no relief on a habitual offender sentencing claim under section 775.084, Flori…
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 intelligenceBilly Hernandez Cameron pleaded guilty and received a habitual offender sentence. He filed a Rule 3.850 motion raising three grounds for post-convicti…
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 Rule 3.850 Motion For Post-Conviction Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
SHIVERS, Chief Judge.
Appellant, Billy Hernandez Cameron, appeals the trial court’s summary denial of his Rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief, in which he raised three grounds: (1) that his guilty plea was involuntarily entered; (2) that his habitual offender sentence was illegal because the trial court failed to follow the procedural safeguards set out in section 775.084, Florida Statutes; and (3) that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. We affirm the trial court’s denial of grounds 1 and 3, since the written plea of guilty and negotiated sentence, signed by the appellant and attached to the trial court’s order, negates both of those grounds by containing statements that defendant was satisfied with his attorney, that all aspects of the plea were fully explained to his complete satisfaction, and that the plea was freely and voluntarily entered. Thomas v. State, 419 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). We reverse the denial of ground 2, however, and remand for the trial court to either attach portions of the record and file conclusively showing that the appellant is entitled to no relief, or to take such further action as is required by Rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED and REMANDED.
SMITH and JOANOS, JJ., concur.