KENNETH DARWELL HODGES, 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 appellate court reviewed a denial of post-conviction relief. It affirmed the denial of one claim regarding habitual felony offender sentences but reversed another claim concerning double jeopardy violations, remanding for further proceedings.
The court held that the habitual felony offender sentences were not illegal under the single subject rule. However, the denial of relief on the double jeopardy claim was improper because the lower court failed to attach required records.
[1] A conviction and habitual felony offender sentence imposed after a jury trial, following the vacation of prior nolo contendere pleas and nonhabitual felony offender sente…
[2] A trial court's order denying a rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief must attach copies of the files and records that conclusively show the defendant is entitled…
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“However, we reverse as to the first ground for relief.”
Establishes the reversal of the lower court's decision on one of the grounds for relief.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKenneth Hodges sought post-conviction relief, arguing his convictions and habitual felony offender sentences violated double jeopardy and the single s…
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 Single Subject Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Kenneth Hodges appeals a final order denying his rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief. The motion alleges two grounds for relief: (1) that his convictions and habitual felony offender sentences imposed pursuant to the jury verdict rendered in a trial held after the circuit court had vacated his nolo contendere pleas and related nonhabitual felony offender sentences, twice place him in jeopardy for the same offenses in violation of the double jeopardy clauses of the federal and Florida constitutions; and (2) that his habitual felony offender sentences are illegal because they violate the single subject rule of the Florida Constitution.'
We affirm as to the second ground for relief challenging the constitutionality of the habitual felony offender statute. Johnson v. State, 589 So. 2d 1370 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), approved, 616 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1993).
However, we reverse as to the first ground for relief. In denying relief on this ground, the circuit court found that “it is obvious the trial court vacated the first plea and sentence upon defendant’s pro se motion ... which indicated that he had a misunderstanding with his prior attorney ...” that the trial court complied with all procedural safeguards in accepting Hodges’s plea, and that the trial court apparently gave Hodges the benefit of the doubt in granting the motion to withdraw the plea. But, the circuit court failed to attach to its order denying the post-conviction motion a copy of the files and records that conclusively show that Hodges 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 portion of the files and records conclusively showing that Hodges 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. Jones v. State, 421 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
ZEHMER, C.J., and SMITH and KAHN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hodges v. State, 633 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…those portions of the files and records conclusively showing that Hodges 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.” Hodges v. State, 633 So. 2d 1091 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). While affirming the denial of the motion on one ground alleged in the motion, our decision recognized the facial validity of the other ground alleged and required the trial court either to identify and attach those portions of t…
-
Hodges v. State, 709 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…But, the circuit court failed to attach to its order denying the post-conviction motion a copy of the files and records that conclusively show that Hodges is entitled to no relief, as required by rule 3.850. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850(d). Hodges v. State, 633 So. 2d 1091 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). On March 2, 1994, this court issued an “Order After Remand” which declined to accept the trial court’s submission [*621] of “copies of the file and record” in support of its previous order, explaining: We appreciate the trial c…
-
Garfield Williams v. State, 654 So. 2d 1309 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…relief as required by rule 3.850. We, therefore, remand this case with directions to attach those portions of the record which conclusively demonstrate that appellant is not entitled to relief, or to conduct an eviden-tiary hearing. Hodges v. State, 633 So. 2d 1091 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). WOLF, WEBSTER and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Johnson, 616 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1993)
- Jones v. State, 421 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Johnson v. State, 589 So. 2d 1370 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)