MONTREY MACK, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Plea Colloquy cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Montrey Mack appeals the summary denial of his timely filed motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. In his motion, Mack contends that prior to entering his guilty pleas, he was not advised about the maximum penalties, including minimum mandatory sentences, he was facing as a violent habitual felony offender. The trial court’s failure to advise him at the change of plea hearing of the minimum mandatory sentences is ground for relief. See State v. Wilson, 395 So. 2d 520 (Fla.1981); Key v. State, 599 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992).
The plea colloquy, which the trial court attached to its order denying Mack’s motion, actually supports Mack’s contention. Accordingly, we reverse the order denying Mack’s motion and remand with directions to the trial court to offer Mack the opportunity to withdraw his guilty pleas.
THREADGILL, A.C.J., and BLUE and FULMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wade v. Hirschman, 903 So. 2d 928 (Fla. 2005)…v. Gibbs, 686 So. 2d 639, 645 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).10 Also, the finding of detriment has apparently been used to increase the magnitude of the burden required to overcome the res judicata effect of the previous decree. See, e.g., Metcalfe v. Metcalfe, 655 So. 2d 1251, 1253 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (“[Ejvidence tended to show that there has been a'substantial and material change of circumstances ... of such a magnitude that it would be detrimental for the children to remain in the custody of the husband .... ”).11 [*93…
-
Perez v. Perez, 767 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…al to the boys.9 [*522] The majority opinion cites three cases for the proposition that this court has already endorsed the “detriment” standard, but the cited cases do not stand for that proposition. The majority opinion cites Metcalfe v. Metcalfe, 655 So. 2d 1251 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), and Elkins v. Vanden Bosch, 433 So. 2d 1251 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), see majority opinion at 516, as well as Zugda v. Gomez, 553 So. 2d 1295 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). See majority opinion at 517. None of the three cases states that a showin…1 / 2
-
Ogilvie v. Ogilvie, 954 So. 2d 698 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…Perdices, 800 So. 2d 289, 290 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Muniz v. Muniz, 789 So. 2d 370, 371-72 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Goodmon v. Goodmon, 779 So. 2d 490, 491 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Young v. Young, 732 So. 2d 1133, 1134 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Metcalfe v. Metcalfe, 655 So. 2d 1251, 1253 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Kelly v. Kelly, 642 So. 2d 800, 802 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), to the extent they imported into the best interest prong a "detriment” or "adverse impact” component. Wade, 903 So. 2d at 933-34. But see Grimaldi v. Grimaldi, 721 So.…
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. Wilson, 395 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 1981)
- Dewayne KEY v. State, 599 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)