CHRISTOPHER LOVE TILLMAN, 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.
Christopher Tillman appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief, claiming that a $13,000 restitution order was not part of his plea agreement and that his attorney was ineffective for failing to object. The court reverses and remands, finding the trial court failed to rebut Tillman's allegations with documentation of the plea agreement.
The trial court improperly denied the motion summarily without providing documentation refuting Tillman's allegations. A defendant may raise the issue of the court's failure to comply with plea agreement terms in a postconviction motion without first moving to withdraw the plea. The case is reversed and remanded for the trial court to either support its denial with documentation or conduct an evidentiary hearing.
[1] A defendant may raise the issue of a court's failure to comply with the terms of a plea agreement in a motion for postconviction relief without having moved to withdraw t…
[2] A trial court's order denying a motion for postconviction relief must refute all of the defendant's allegations, supported by documentation, to avoid reversal and remand.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“A defendant may raise the issue of the court's failure to comply with the terms of the plea agreement in a motion for postconviction relief without having moved to withdraw the plea prior to sentencing.”
Establishes that Tillman did not need to move to withdraw his plea before challenging restitution imposed outside the plea agreement terms
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTillman entered a guilty plea under a plea agreement. The trial court subsequently imposed a $13,000 restitution order. Tillman filed a postconviction…
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 Terms cases and more on FLexlaw
PATTERSON, Judge.
Christopher Love Tillman appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief asserting that the provisions of the plea agreement did not include $13,000.00 in restitution ordered by the court and that his attorney was ineffective for failing to object to imposition of such restitution. Tillman claims restitution was added to his sentence after the court accepted his guilty plea. The trial court’s order fails to refute all of Tillman’s allegations. Therefore, we reverse and remand as to the restitution and ineffectiveness issues as explained below.
The trial court intimates that Tillman is attempting to go behind the plea after accepting the benefits of the bargain; however, it does not provide this court with a copy of the plea agreement to support its conclusion. See McManamon v. State, 609 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). A defendant may raise the issue of the court’s failure to comply with the terms of the plea agreement in a motion for postconviction relief without having moved to withdraw the plea prior to sentencing. See Eggers v. State, 624 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the court to support the denial of the motion with documentation which rebuts Tillman’s allegations that the imposition of restitution was not a part of the plea agreement and that counsel was ineffective. The court shall conduct an evidentiary hearing if the case files and records do not conclusively demonstrate that Tillman is not entitled to relief. The denial of the motion is affirmed in all other respects.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and LAZZARA, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Eggers v. State, 624 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- McMANAMON v. State, 609 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)