ROOSEVELT THOMPSON, 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.
Roosevelt Thompson appealed the denial of his post-conviction motion challenging his sentencing as a habitual violent felony offender (HVFO). The court affirmed the denial of most claims but reversed as to Thompson's allegation that he lacked the requisite prior convictions for HVFO classification, finding the trial court failed to provide sufficient record materials to refute this claim.
The court affirmed denial of the claims regarding counsel's misrepresentation and the constitutionality of the HVFO statute, but reversed as to the allegation regarding HVFO qualification because the trial court failed to provide the April 1991 sentencing transcript necessary to refute Thompson's claim that he lacked requisite prior convictions.
[1] A defendant's post-conviction claim that their plea was induced by counsel's misinformation is insufficient if it does not allege that the defendant would not have entere…
[2] A statute has been repeatedly upheld as constitutional despite challenges to its validity.
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 intelligence“because Thompson could not agree as part of a plea bargain to be sentenced as an HVFO if he did not actually qualify for that classification, see Williams v. State, 591 So.2d 948 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), his allegation that he does not have the requisite prior convictions states a ground for relief which must either be refuted by portions of the files and records, or on which further proceedings under Rule 3.850 must be held.”
Establishes that the trial court cannot summarily deny a claim that the defendant lacked HVFO qualification without providing complete record materials to refute it
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThompson pleaded guilty on March 12, 1991 to robbery, trespass, and resisting arrest in exchange for a 5-year sentence as an HVFO. The trial court ord…
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 Statutory Constitutionality cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Roosevelt Thompson has appealed an order summarily denying his motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
On March 12, 1991, Thompson tendered a guilty plea to robbery, trespass of an unoccupied structure, and resisting arrest without violence, in return for a 5-year sentence as an habitual violent felony offender (HVFO). The court ordered a pre-sentence investigation, returnable in April 1991, for the express purpose of determining Thompson’s eligibility for HVFO status. At a sentencing proceeding held April 16, 1991, the court accepted Thompson’s plea, adjudicated him guilty, and sentenced him to 5 years incarceration as an HVFO. Thompson did not appeal.
On May 31, 1991, Thompson filed the instant motion alleging that: 1) his prior record did not qualify him for HVFO status; 2) his plea was induced by counsel’s misinformation regarding eligibility for gain-time; and 3) section 775.084, Florida Statutes (Supp.1988) is unconstitutional. The trial court denied the motion by order of July 10, 1991, finding the allegations refuted by the transcripts of the March plea proceeding and the April sentencing proceeding. The order stated that both transcripts were attached, but only the March transcript was actually provided.
Thompson’s motion was correctly denied as to the allegation that his plea was induced by his counsel’s misrepresentations, in that he does not allege that, had counsel given him the correct information, he would not have entered the plea. See Duggan v. State, 588 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Further, the argument that section 775.084, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1988) is unconstitutional has been rejected on numerous occasions. See, e.g., Love v. State, 569 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).
However, because Thompson could not agree as part of a plea bargain to be sentenced as an HVFO if he did not actually qualify for that classification, see Williams v. State, 591 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), his allegation that he does not have the requisite prior convictions states a ground for relief which must either be refuted by portions of the files and records, or on which further proceedings under Rule 3.850 must be held. Here, the attachment provided by the trial court, the March 1991 transcript, does not refute the allegation. In fact, it shows that the trial court ordered a pre-sentence investigation for the express purpose of determining Thompson’s qualification as an HVFO. The transcript of the April 1991 proceeding at which it was presumably determined that he was so qualified was not attached.
Based on the foregoing, the order of the trial court is reversed only as to the allegation regarding qualification for HVFO classification, and remanded either for attachment of the pertinent portions of the record, or for further proceedings under Rule 3.850. The order is in all other respects affirmed.
JOANOS, C.J., and MINER and KAHN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Perez v. State, 647 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…e year sentence the trial court imposed on Perez was appropriate for the burglary and petit theft convictions, but illegally imposed for the cocaine possession conviction, even if the sentence was a result of a plea agreement. See Thompson v. State, 599 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). Accordingly, we reverse the erroneously imposed thirty-five year concurrent sentence and habitual felony offender status for the cocaine possession case only, Circuit Court Case Number 93-36225, and remand for re-sentencing of…
-
Watkins v. State, 622 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…it, regardless of the plea agreement. Williams v. State, 500 So. 2d 501, 503 (Fla.1986) (a trial court cannot impose an illegal sentence pursuant to a plea bargain). Accord Cribbs v. State, 599 So. 2d 246, 247 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Thompson v. State, 599 So. 2d 244, 245 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). As to the merits of the issue, before a HVFO sentence may be imposed, section 775.084(l)(b)(l) provides that the defendant must have been previously convicted of one or more of the following felonies: [*1150] a. Arson, b.…
-
Richardson v. State, 677 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…claim that plea had been involuntarily induced as the result of ineffective assistance of counsel, where motion failed to allege that defendant would not have entered plea if attorney had not misrepresented consequences of plea); Thompson v. State, 599 So. 2d 244, 245 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (trial court properly denied allegation in post-conviction motion that defendant’s plea had been induced by counsel’s misrepresentation, where motion failed to allege that defendant would not have entered plea if counsel had…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Love v. State, 569 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Duggan v. State, 588 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Williams v. State, 591 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)