WALLACE BROOKS, 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.
Wallace Brooks appeals the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, arguing his plea to cocaine possession was involuntary because he was not informed of the consequences of being sentenced as a habitual offender and did not receive notice of the state's intent to seek enhancement. The appellate court reverses in part and remands for further proceedings on the consequences issue.
The court reverses and remands as to the allegation that Brooks was not informed of the consequences of habitual offender sentencing, as the trial court failed to confirm that Brooks was personally aware of those consequences as required by Ashley v. State. The court affirms the denial of the motion regarding the lack-of-notice allegation, as the plea transcript refutes this claim.
[1] A defendant's plea is involuntary if they are not informed of the consequences of being sentenced as a habitual offender, including the effect on early release.
[2] A trial court must confirm that a defendant is personally aware of the reasonable consequences of receiving a sentence as a habitual offender.
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“Ashley requires the trial court to confirm that the defendant is personally aware of the reasonable consequences of receiving a sentence as a habitual offender.”
Establishes the standard for constitutional compliance in habitual offender sentencing
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn March 10, 1993, Brooks entered an open plea to possession of cocaine. Several weeks later, the trial court sentenced him as a habitual offender to …
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 Motion Pursuant To Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.850 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Wallace Brooks appeals the summary denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We reverse as to one allegation only.
On March 10, 1993, Brooks entered an open plea to possession of cocaine. Several weeks later, the court sentenced him as a habitual offender to a six-year prison term followed by four years’ probation. He claims that his plea was involuntary for two reasons. First, he alleges that he was not informed about the consequences of being sentenced as a habitual offender, particularly the effect on early release. Second, he asserts he did not receive before entering his plea notice of the state’s intent to seek an enhanced sentence. He cites Ashley v. State, 614 So. 2d 486 (Fla.1993), which was issued on February 25, 1993, in support of both grounds. The trial court denied the motion without explanation and attached the plea and sentencing transcripts.
The transcripts fail to refute the allegation that he was unaware of the consequences of his plea. Ashley requires the trial court to confirm that the defendant is personally aware of the reasonable consequences of receiving a sentence as a habitual offender. See Ashley, 614 So. 2d at 490. Hence, we must reverse for further proceedings regarding this allegation.
With respect to lack of notice, however, we affirm. Even if Brooks had alleged facts establishing the specific steps he would have taken to prepare a submission, see Judge v. State, 596 So. 2d 73, 76 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 613 So. 2d 5 (Fla.1992), the plea transcript conclusively refutes his allegation that he did not have notice before entering his plea. We therefore affirm the denial of the motion on this ground.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings as to the allegation regarding failure to inform Brooks of the consequences of the plea. If the trial court again denies the motion, it must attach portions of the record or files that refute the allegation. If the record does not refute this allegation, the court should conduct an evidentiary hearing. Any party aggrieved by the subsequent action of the trial court must file a timely notice of appeal to obtain further appellate review.
Reversed and remanded.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and PARKER and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Ashley v. State, 614 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 1993)
- Judge v. State, 596 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)