MICHAEL WALLACE PRUITT, 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.
Michael Pruitt appeals the denial of his rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief, claiming his guilty plea was involuntary because he was misled about his sentencing range and that his counsel was ineffective. The appellate court found the trial court failed to comply with procedural requirements by not attaching critical documents to its order, and therefore reversed and remanded for proper consideration of the claims.
The trial court's denial of Pruitt's post-conviction relief motion was premature and procedurally defective because the court failed to attach to its order the written plea agreement and other record documents that would conclusively show whether Pruitt was entitled to no relief, as required by rule 3.850(d). The case is reversed and remanded for the trial court to either attach the required documents or conduct an evidentiary hearing if the record does not conclusively contradict Pruitt's allegations.
[1] A motion for postconviction relief must be denied without an evidentiary hearing only if the record conclusively shows that the movant is entitled to no relief.
[2] When denying a motion for postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing, the court must attach to the order those portions of the files and records that conclusive…
Previewing 2 of 6 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“the written plea agreement signed, by the defendant indicates a permitted guideline range of 17-40 years”
The trial court's factual finding that was stated in its order but not supported by attached documentation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePruitt entered a guilty plea based on representations that he faced a guideline sentence of 12 to 17 years with a recommended sentence of 15 years. Ho…
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 Involuntary Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
[*119] PER CURIAM.
Michael Pruitt appeals a final order denying his motion for post conviction relief pursuant to rule B.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. The motion alleges two grounds for relief: (1) the plea was involuntary because Pruitt was not advised that he would have or could have been sentenced to 30 years, but instead he relied on assurances from his attorney and the scoresheet which indicated a guideline sentence range of 12 to 17 years with a recommended sentence of 15 years; and (2) the defense counsel was ineffective in several respects, including failing to advise Pruitt that the initial scoresheet was not the one used for sentencing, failing to advise Pruitt that he could withdraw his guilty plea when Pruitt told the attorney of his disapproval of the 30-year sentence, failing to prepare any defense from the outset of the proceedings, conspiring with the state to trick Pruitt into pleading guilty by amending the guideline scoresheet before sentencing and subsequent to the entry of the guilty plea, and refusing to provide Pruitt with any information or documentation concerning the case after sentencing.
On June 8, 1993, the circuit court entered an order which denied the motion, finding that “the written plea agreement signed, by the defendant indicates a permitted guideline range of 17-40 years.” However, the circuit court failed to attach to the order a copy of the plea agreement or other record documents that conclusively show that Pruitt is entitled to no relief, as required by rule 3.850. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850(d).
Therefore, we remand this cause with directions to attach those portions of the files and records conclusively showing that Pruitt is entitled to no relief on this ground or, if the record does not conclusively contradict those allegations, to conduct an evidentiary hearing on this issue.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
ZEHMER, C.J., and ERVIN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.