ANTONIO L. POWELL, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Court reversed in part and remanded a postconviction relief denial where the record did not conclusively show appellant was entitled to no relief on his claim that counsel's misadvice about sentencing guidelines induced his guilty plea.
Where a sentencing judge states a defendant is sentenced to the bottom of the guidelines but the scoresheet shows a lower minimum exists, the trial court must clarify its intent, and if the stated sentence was intended, the defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a claim that counsel's misadvice about guideline compliance induced the plea.
[1] Where a sentencing court states it is imposing a sentence at the bottom of the guidelines but the sentencing guidelines scoresheet reflects a lower minimum permissible se…
Previewing 1 of 1 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 record does not show 'conclusively that the appellant is entitled to no relief'”
Court's standard for reviewing denial of postconviction relief motion under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(g)
Antonio Powell appealed an order denying his Rule 3.850 postconviction relief motion. At sentencing, the court imposed a twelve-year sentence and stat…
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 Affirmative Misadvice Of Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Antonio L. Powell appeals an order denying his motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We conclude that as to Ground Two the record does not show “conclusively that the appellant is entitled to no relief_” Fla. R.App.P. 9.140(g); see also Sentencing Guidelines Scoresheet and Plea Colloquy at 7. At disposition of this case, the court imposed a twelve-year sentence and stated that defendant was being sentenced to the bottom of the guidelines. The scoresheet reflects that twelve years is the bottom of the recommended range, but seven years is the bottom of the permitted range. We remand for clarification by the sentencing judge as to whether the twelve-year sentence is the sentence the court intended to impose. If so, appellant would then be entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his sworn claim on Ground Two, that his plea was induced by the affirmative misadvice of his counsel that the agreed-to sentence was at the bottom of the guidelines. See Forbert v. State, 437 So. 2d 1079, 1081 (Fla.1983); Brown v. State, 647 So. 2d 197, 198 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Eggers v. State, 624 So. 2d 336, 338 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Hingson v. State, 553 So. 2d 768, 769 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). The order under review is affirmed insofar as it denies relief on Ground One.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gonzalez v. State, 714 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…ry. maximum. I believe that this court cannot conclude under these circumstances that Gonzalez’ plea was knowing and voluntary or that no prejudice is shown by the mis-advice given him by the trial court and his attorney. See, e.g., Powell v. State, 670 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)(defendant entitled to eviden-tiary hearing on motion for post-conviction relief in light of affirmative mis-advice as to nature of guideline sentence); Johnson v. State, 523 So. 2d 755, 756 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)(summary denial of 3.8…
Authorities Cited
- Forbert v. State, 437 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 1983)
- Eggers v. State, 624 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- Cunningham v. AT & T Techs., 553 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Brown v. State, 647 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)