JOSEPH ANTHONY AHEDO, 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 held that the trial court erred in summarily denying the motion for postconviction relief without attaching relevant transcripts or records.
Appellant sought postconviction relief, arguing he should not have received mandatory minimum sentences for possessing a firearm during armed robberie…
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 Robbery With A Firearm cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Joseph Ahedo appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We reverse.
Appellant challenges only his two concurrent three-year minimum mandatories for possessing a firearm in the commission of two armed robberies with a firearm. He alleged in his motion that it was his code-fendant who possessed the firearm and therefore he' should not have received the minimum mandatories. See Bell v. State, 589 So. 2d 1374 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Watson v. State, 525 So. 2d 1034 (Fla.2d DCA 1988). The trial court denied the motion without attaching the plea or sentencing transcript. The judgments and sentences attached to the order do not refute appellant’s allegations.
Accordingly, we reverse the order of denial and remand for further proceedings. On remand, if the trial court should again deny the motion, it must attach those portions of the files or records conclusively refuting appellant’s allegations. If the records and files do not refute the allegations, it may be necessary for the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing. Any party aggrieved by the subsequent action of the trial court must file a notice of appeal within thirty days to obtain further appellate review.
Reversed and remanded.
RYDER, A.C.J., and PARKER and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Poiteer v. State, 627 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)…ery.” 589 So. 2d at 1375. The district court concluded that Bell’s assertion, if true, constituted fundamental error. This court has previously determined that it will follow Bell. Anfield v. State, 615 So. 2d 853 (Fla.2d DCA 1993); Ahedo v. State, 603 So. 2d 80 (Fla.2d DCA 1992).1 However, the present case suggests the need to explain our position. We hold that the absence of a factual basis during a plea colloquy, or the failure to make specific findings regarding use of a firearm, will not ipso facto ent…
-
Brown v. State, 633 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…impose such on defendant's plea to robbery); Anfield v. State, 615 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) ("motion to correct sentence" alleging that sentence was illegal because defendant did not carry firearm during commission of offense); Ahedo v. State, 603 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (motion filed pursuant to rule 3.850 challenging minimum mandatory terms and alleging that code-fendant possessed firearm); Allen v. State, 598 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (motion filed pursuant to rule 3.800 challenging minimum…
Authorities Cited
- Bell v. State, 589 So. 2d 1374 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Watson v. State, 525 So. 2d 1034 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)