RICHARD HIGHTOWER, 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 an allegation of counsel misrepresenting sentence concurrency states a prima facie case for relief under rule 3.850.
Defendant pled guilty to robbery and was sentenced as a habitual offender, alleging his attorney promised the sentence would run concurrently with a p…
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 Concurrent Vs. Consecutive Sentences cases and more on FLexlaw
ERVIN, Judge.
Richard Hightower appeals from the trial court’s summary denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. On the state’s concession of error, we reverse and remand.
Hightower pled guilty to robbery and was sentenced to eighteen years in prison as a habitual offender. He alleged that his attorney promised him that this sentence would run concurrent with a five-year sentence he was then serving for another offense. He is instead now serving the sentences consecutively and claims he would not have entered into the plea agreement had he known that his sentence would have been made consecutive to his prior sentence.
An allegation that trial counsel or the trial court erroneously led the defendant to believe that he or she would serve two separate sentences concurrently rather than consecutively, states a prima facie case for relief under rule 3.850. Bryant v. State, 355 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Schroeder v. State, 641 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Allen v. State, 616 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Patterson v. State, 611 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Jackson v. State, 442 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). The trial court’s attachments to its final order — consisting of excerpts from the plea hearing during which Hightower told the judge that he wished to be sentenced the same day and agreed that his lawyer had explained the guilty plea to him — do not foreclose the possibility that counsel promised Hightower that he would receive a concurrent sentence.
Issues I, V, VI and VII are without merit and are therefore affirmed, and Issue IV is not yet ripe for review.
REVERSED and REMANDED with directions to the trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing on issues II and III, or attach portions of the record which conclusively refute Hightower’s claim.
JOANOS and WOLF, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Regan v. State, 730 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…defense counsel’s mistaken advice that separate sentences would run concurrently instead of consecutively induced a defendant to plead guilty is cognizable under rule 3.850. See Smith v. State, 718 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Hightower v. State, 650 So. 2d 1086, 1087 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (“An allegation that trial counsel or the trial court erroneously led the defendant to believe that he would serve two separate sentences concurrently rather than consecutively, states a prima facie case for relief under ru…
-
Williams v. State, 710 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…ld be concurrent with a sentence in another case, and who states that he would not have entered the plea had he not been promised a concurrent sentence, has stated a prima facie ground for relief and is entitled to a hearing. See Hightower v. State, 650 So. 2d 1086 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Perkins v. State, 696 So. 2d 1343 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Schroeder v. State, 641 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). Had Williams filed a timely motion to withdraw his plea in this case, he would have been entitled to a hearing. 2 How…
-
Wilford L. Lang v. State, 758 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…tions of record refuting claim of ineffective assistance of counsel given defense counsel’s misleading information that sentences for new offenses would run concurrently with sentence imposed for violation of controlled release); Hightower v. State, 650 So. 2d 1086, 1087 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)(fínding pri-ma facie case for relief under rule 3.850 where defendant alleged that trial counsel or trial court misled him to believe that he would serve two separate sentences concurrently rather than consecutively); and M…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jackson v. State, 442 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Bryant v. State, 355 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- Kristian Patterson v. State, 611 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Allen v. State, 616 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- Schroeder v. State, 641 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)