JOHN W. HILLS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Involuntary Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
John Hills appeals the trial court’s summary denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm his first issue in which he contends that he was not informed about the requirement of minimum mandatory sentences prior to the entry of his plea, as this claim is conclusively refuted by the record, but we reverse and remand for further proceedings as to his second.
Regarding the latter, Hills alleged that he entered an involuntary plea, because his lawyer did not inform him that his habitual violent felony offender sentence would preclude him from receiving basic gain-time. The trial court rejected this claim, relying on case law predating Ashley v. State, 614 So. 2d 486 (Fla.1993). Because the trial court did not attach the plea colloquy to its order, this panel cannot determine whether the sentencing court ensured, pursuant to Ashley, that Hills was aware of the consequences of habit-ualization. We therefore reverse and remand with directions to the trial court to reconsider this issue in light of Ashley.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART and REMANDED for further proceedings.
ERVIN, MINER and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Freels v. State, 701 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…and that the trial court erred in denying the claim without an evidentiary hearing or attachments from the trial court files and records which conclusively refute the claim. See also, Lee v. State, 677 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Hills v. State, 671 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Espinoza v. State, 679 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). As to the second of the claims, the appellant asserted that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the improper scoring of two out-of-state convictions.…
-
Terence R. Davis v. State, 716 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…ctive and trial court erred in failing to inquire whether appellant understood significance and reasonable consequences of habitualization, including maximum penalty and ineligibility for certain gain-time and early-release credits); Hills v. State, 671 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (affirming portion of summary denial of postconviction motion claiming defendant was not informed of requirement of minimum mandatory sentences because conclusively refuted by record, but reversing in part because attachments did…
Authorities Cited
- Ashley v. State, 614 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 1993)