RAYMOND YOUNG, 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 order denying a motion for postconviction relief must be reversed if it does not contain record attachments conclusively refuting the defendant's allegations.
Defendant appealed an order denying his rule 3.850 motion without an evidentiary hearing, alleging denial of counsel and false promises by his attorne…
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 Actual Prejudice cases and more on FLexlaw
PARIENTE, Judge.
Defendant appeals an order denying his rule 3.850 motion without an evidentiary hearing. Because the order does not contain record attachments conclusively refuting de fendant’s allegations, we must reverse and remand. The state concedes error. The substance of defendant’s first claim is that he should have been permitted to withdraw his plea because he was denied his right to counsel when his public defender failed to appear in court for three hearings, which included two plea conferences and a ease disposition hearing. He also alleges that his counsel falsely promised him that he would be sent to the sheriffs drug farm as part of his sentence if he pled guilty to the charges.
The order denying defendant’s motion contains the finding that counsel did participate at the hearings, 'but does not include a copy of the “files and records that conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief’ as mandated by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(d). If the record attachments conclusively disprove defendant’s claim of denial of his right to counsel, then no evidentiary hearing would be required.
Defendant’s second claim is legally insufficient because he does not allege actual prejudice; that is, that he would have refused to plead guilty had the true facts been known. Unless the record conclusively refuted this allegation, the trial court’s denial should have been without prejudice to allow defendant to amend his motion to include allegations concerning prejudice. See Marsh v. State, 581 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).
Accordingly we reverse and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
GLICKSTEIN and KLEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Marrow v. State, 715 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…ains how the omission prejudiced the outcome of the trial.” See Jackson v. State, 711 So. 2d 1371, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D1472, D1473 (Fla. 4th DCA June 17, 1998), citing Sorgman v. State, 549 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). See also McCaskill v. State, 666 So. 2d 1049 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Thomas v. State, 639 So. 2d 1117, 1118 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). Appellant in this case alleged that he asked defense counsel to interview and to call as a witness an individual known as Chuck. The motion states that Chuck bears mor…
-
Cole Augustus Urquhart v. State, 676 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…stance claims based upon counsel’s failure to adequately investigate and consider a defense may be sufficient to require further proceedings, depending upon the specificity of the factual allegations in support of each claim. See McCaskill v. State, 666 So. 2d 1049 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Jenkins v. State, 625 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Appellant in this ease pled nolo con-tendere to numerous charges, including attempted burglary, and burglary of a structure, both of which are specific intent crimes. Ellis v…
Authorities Cited
- Hamp Green v. State, 581 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)