ARTHUR JAMES, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Control Release cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Arthur James’ allegation that his plea to three counts of aggravated battery was not knowing and voluntary because his trial counsel affirmatively misinformed him that, through the operation of control release, he would serve only seven months of his twelve-year sentence in prison states a facially sufficient claim for relief under Rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Where a petitioner alleges that trial counsel affirmatively misinformed him as to the amount of time petitioner would spend in prison, the plea agreement form and the petitioner’s oral statements at the sentencing hearing acknowledging that the plea is knowing and voluntary do not conclusively establish no entitlement to relief. Eady v. State, 604 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); appeal after remand, 622 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). See also Smith v. State, 667 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). We reverse and remand for attachment of record conclusively refuting James’ entitlement to relief, or for an evidentiary hearing on this issue.
BOOTH, WOLF and BENTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Silas Gilyard v. State, 675 So. 2d 950 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…me a defendant could spend in prison are sufficient “to cast doubt on the voluntary character” of a guilty plea. Eady v. State, 604 So. 2d 659, 561 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); appeal after remand, 622 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). See also James v. State, 670 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Additionally, where a petitioner alleges that defense counsel affirmatively misinformed him as to the amount of time petitioner could spend in prison, the petitioner’s oral statements at the sentencing hearing acknowledging th…
-
Armstrong v. State, 679 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…ts, he would not have pled to the offenses. Because the appellant’s allegations are facially sufficient, the trial court erred in summarily denying this claim without attaching portions of the record that refute the claim. See, e.g., James v. State, 670 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); McCoy v. State, 598 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). We otherwise affirm the order. Accordingly, the order is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is remanded. MINER, ALLEN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Eady v. State, 604 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Eady v. State, 622 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- Smith v. State, 667 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)