PRINCE TURNER, 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.
Prince Turner challenges the trial court's denial of his motion seeking to preserve gain time credits under a plea agreement when a violation of community control resulted in a new prison sentence. The court reversed in part because the trial court failed to address Turner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and involuntary plea, which should have been considered under Rule 3.850.
The court reversed in part and remanded because the trial court should have treated Turner's motion as one filed under Rule 3.850 for postconviction relief and addressed his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and involuntary plea on the merits rather than dismissing them based on procedural grounds.
[1] A trial court may not grant relief sought under Rule 3.800(a) that requires vacating and resentencing absent legal justification.
[2] A motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel or an involuntary plea must be filed under Rule 3.850, not Rule 3.800(a).
Previewing 2 of 5 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“the relief sought, an entirely new sentence structured to fulfill the intent of the negotiation, was without the court's jurisdiction absent legal justification to vacate the sentence under review”
Establishes that the trial court correctly identified the jurisdictional limitation but erred in not addressing the underlying claims.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTurner entered a plea agreement that promised him credit for ten years imposed as the incarcerative portion of a split sentence on a new fifteen-year …
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 Gain Time Forfeiture cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Prince Turner challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion treated, but not identified, as one filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) in which he complains that the operation of section 948.06(6), Florida Statutes (1989), deprives him of the benefits of a plea in which he was promised credit for the entire ten years imposed earlier as the incarcerative portion of a split sentence on a new fifteen-year term following a violation of community control. The statute in question, effective as to crimes committed on or after October 1, 1989, including Turner’s which occurred very shortly after that date, allows for the forfeiture of gain time earned on the earlier, served sentence when a violation of court-ordered supervision follows release and results in a new prison term. The court correctly observed in denying the motion that the relief sought, an entirely new sentence structured to fulfill the intent of the negotiation, was without the court’s jurisdiction absent legal justification to vacate the sentence under review. Fla. R.Crim.P. 3.800(b).
The trial court in its order further discussed claims raised in the motion and accurately described them as “a hybrid ineffective assistance of counsel/involuntary plea issue” and declined to address them as they had not been raised in a motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Turner’s motion is properly sworn, and would have been timely had he filed it in fact as a rule 3.850 motion. Although the trial court declined to do so, we treat the motion as one filed for posteonviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Wilson v. State, 514 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987).
Turner claims that the court and his attorney made representations to him to induce the plea which have not been fulfilled and alleges that the plea to the violation to community control was involuntarily entered. The court did not address these claims as it focused on the narrow issues cognizable only on a motion to correct sentence. As the record before us fails to refute those claims in a motion treated as one seeking postcon-viction relief, we reverse. On remand, should the trial court again deny the motion by attaching records refuting the allegations, Turner must seek further appellate review with this court within thirty days.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL and FULMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Denty v. State, 731 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…I respectfully dissent. I would remand with directions to treat the appellant’s timely, sworn motion as if it had been filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, and conduct an evidentiary hearing. See generally, e.g., Turner v. State, 670 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). Cf. Edwards v. State, 700 So. 2d 444, 445 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (holding court unable to treat an unsworn motion seeking credit for jail time under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800 “as if filed pursuant to rule 3.850”). O…
Authorities Cited
- Wilson v. State, 514 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)