LAWRENCE JAMES BOSTON, 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.
Lawrence Boston appealed the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to raise a double jeopardy defense. The Florida Second District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the trial court erred by summarily denying the motion without attaching record documents that could refute Boston's allegations.
The court reversed and held that the trial court erred by summarily denying the motion without attaching documents to the order that would refute Boston's ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The court recognized that while the state may generally refile nol-prossed charges, this general rule does not apply when charges were dropped as a condition of a negotiated plea, which could support a valid double jeopardy claim.
[1] A trial court commits error by summarily denying a motion for postconviction relief without attaching any documents that refute the movant's claims.
[2] Charges previously nol prossed may be refiled by the state if the applicable statute of limitations and speedy trial rule are followed.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“This general rule does not apply, however, if the charges were dropped as a condition of a negotiated plea.”
Establishes the exception to the general rule permitting refiling of nol-prossed charges, creating potential double jeopardy protection when charges are dismissed as part of a plea bargain.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBoston was convicted of charges filed in September 1990. Boston claimed these same charges had been previously filed and dismissed pursuant to a negot…
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 Negotiated Plea Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
[*554] PER CURIAM.
Lawrence James Boston appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief. We reverse because the trial court failed to attach to its order any documents that refute Mr. Boston’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
In this timely rule 3.850 motion, Mr. Boston claims that his convictions for charges filed against him in September 1990 should have been barred by double jeopardy. Specifically, he alleges that these charges had been filed previously and dismissed under a negotiated plea agreement. He argues that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to raise this issue.
As a general rule, it is permissible for the state to refile charges it has nol prossed, so long as it complies with the applicable statute of limitations and the speedy trial rule. See State v. Agee, 622 So. 2d 473 (Fla.1993); State v. Carter, 452 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); State v. Sokol, 208 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968). This general rule does not apply, however, if the charges were dropped as a condition of a negotiated plea. See Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 92 S.Ct. 495, 30 L.Ed.2d 427 (1971). Counsel’s failure to raise the prior negotiated plea as a double jeopardy issue could create a valid basis for relief under the standard set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Thus, the trial court erred by summarily denying Mr. Boston’s motion without any record attachments.
On remand, unless the case files and records conclusively show that Mr. Boston is not entitled to relief, the trial court shall order the state to file an answer. After receipt of the answer, the trial court shall determine whether an evidentiary hearing is required. If the trial court should summarily deny the motion again, it shall attach such portions of the record that conclusively refute Mr. Boston’s allegations. Any party aggrieved by the subsequent action of the trial court must file a notice of appeal within thirty days to obtain appellate review.
Accordingly, this case is reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
THREADGILL, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND and QUINCE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Hurd, 739 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…of the second information with the recognition that generally it is permissible for the State to ■ refile charges it has nolle prossed, so long as it complies with the applicable statute of limitations and the speedy trial rule. See Boston v. State, 645 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). The validity of Hurd’s alleged due process violation depends on whether the State’s action was motivated by an improper purpose and whether Hurd suffered any prejudice.. Cf. United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783, 790, 97 S.Ct. 2…
-
Rogers v. State, 656 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…On appeal, Rogers argues that the charge nolle prossed earlier by the state pursuant to his plea agreement and the present grand theft charge involve the “same conduct” and thus double jeopardy bars the subsequent prosecution. See Boston v. State, 645 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). In Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508, 110 S.Ct. 2084, 109 L.Ed.2d 548 (1990), the United States Supreme Court held that to determine whether a subsequent prosecution is barred by the double jeopardy clause, a court must first apply t…
-
State v. Linger (9th Cir. Ct. App. Div. 2016)…. Generally, it is permissible for the State to refile charges it has dismissed so long as it complies with the applicable statute of limitations and the speedy trial rule. State v. Hurd, 739 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); See also Boston v. State, 645 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); State v. M.J.B, a child, 576 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991 (“The decision to file a nolle prosequi is within the sole discretion of the State . . . permission of the trial court is not necessary.”). The validity of a due process…
Authorities Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984)
- Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (U.S. 1971)
- State v. Agee, 622 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 1993)
- State v. Sokol, 208 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- State v. Carter, 452 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)