RODNEY CALVIN MCCUTCHEON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED.
ANSTEAD and WARNER, JJ„ concur.
STONE, J., dissents with opinion.
STONE, Judge,
dissenting.
In my judgment, the limited plea “colloquy” here is not sufficient to refute the appellant’s allegation that he was not advised of the consequences of his plea. The appellant says that he accepted the plea proposal conditioned on the sentence running concurrently with a sentence for which appellant was on parole at the time of the crime. Nothing in the record conclusively refutes this allegation. Although the record does reflect that counsel discussed the defendant’s “parole situation” with him, it is silent as to the content of that discussion. In the face of appellant’s statements in his petition, an evidentiary hearing should be held in order to determine whether appellant was sufficiently advised of the consequences of his plea. E.g., Smith v. State, 556 So. 2d 804 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Diaz v. State, 609 So. 2d 1337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…prosecution will also be barred if “to establish an essential element of an offense charged in that prosecution, [the government] will prove conduct that constitutes an offense for which the defendant has already been prosecuted.” Johnson v. State, 595 So. 2d 244, 246 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (citations omitted), review denied, 605 So. 2d 1264 (Fla.1992). This case clearly does not fall within the first prong of the test. The two crimes have different statutory elements and one is not a lesser included offense of…
Authorities Cited
- Smith v. State, 556 So. 2d 804 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)