SIMON PEREZ, 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's summary denial of the motion for postconviction relief was improper because the plea colloquy did not adequately refute the claim of misrepresentation regarding parole eligibility.
Perez pled guilty to attempted sexual battery in exchange for a thirty-year sentence, allegedly based on his counsel's misrepresentation that he would…
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 Parole Eligibility cases and more on FLexlaw
[*164] PER CURIAM.
Perez appeals the summary denial of his rule 3.850 motion. Perez raises four claims in his motion, only one of which warrants reversal.
Perez was charged with sexual battery of a ten-year-old boy, a capital felony, with a statutory life sentence without eligibility for parole for twenty-five years. §§ 794.-011 and 775.082, Fla.Stat. (1989). He pled guilty to attempted sexual battery in exchange for a thirty-year sentence. There was no direct appeal.
Perez now claims that prior to entry of his plea, his counsel represented to him that if he accepted the state’s thirty-year offer, he would be eligible for parole. He further asserts that but for counsel’s representation regarding parole, he would not have pled guilty. If Perez’ claim is true, he was misled because he was sentenced under the guidelines and is therefore ineligible for parole. See § 921.001(10), Fla.Stat. (1989); Weidmann v. State, 523 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). Because the plea colloquy attached to the trial court’s order of denial does not adequately refute this claim, we reverse on this point and remand. On remand the trial court may again deny the relief requested and attach to its order of denial that portion of the record which refutes Perez’ claim or conduct an evidentiary hearing.
Reversed, in part, and remanded for proceedings. The order of denial is otherwise affirmed.
LEHAN, C.J., and DANAHY and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Leroux, 689 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 1996)…nscript of a sentencing hearing or by written statements to the contrary contained in a negotiated plea). Leroux cites a number of district court opinions as supporting the district court’s conclusion in the instant case. See, e.g., Perez v. State, 605 So. 2d 163 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (finding that plea colloquy attached to trial court’s order denying relief did not conclusively refute defendant’s claim that counsel gave erroneous advice as to eligibility for parole); Bell v. State, 602 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 2d DCA…
-
Montgomery v. State, 615 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…three years and that he was eligible for control release. Misadvice of counsel as to the length of sentence or eligibility for gain time or early release is a basis for post-conviction relief if not refuted by the record. See, e.g., Perez v. State, 605 So. 2d 163 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (plea colloquy does not refute claim counsel misrepresented defendant’s eligibility for parole); Young v. State, 604 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (claim counsel misadvised defendant as to sentence and consequences of habitual off…
Authorities Cited
- Weidmann v. State, 523 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)