DAVID A. ARROYO, 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.
David Arroyo, who pleaded guilty as a 15-year-old to second-degree murder and received a 30-year sentence, appealed the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 postconviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and procedural violations. The appellate court affirmed the denial of some grounds but reversed and remanded others because the trial court failed to attach record support to conclusively refute the claims.
The court affirmed the denial of grounds 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 but reversed and remanded regarding grounds 5, 7, 8, and 9 because those grounds were facially sufficient and the trial court failed to attach record support conclusively refuting the claims. The trial court must either attach transcripts or other documents refuting the claims or conduct an evidentiary hearing.
[1] A postconviction motion is facially sufficient when allegations, if true, would entitle the movant to relief.
[2] A trial court must attach record support conclusively refuting facially sufficient claims in a postconviction motion or conduct an evidentiary hearing.
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 court must inform the juvenile of the rights provided by the Legislature under section 39.111 and insure that the juvenile voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waives those rights.”
Establishes the mandatory procedural requirement for accepting a juvenile's plea agreement under Florida law, which the trial court apparently failed to follow.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceArroyo was 15 years old when he pleaded guilty as an adult to second-degree murder and was sentenced to 30 years in prison with a 3-year mandatory min…
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 Juvenile Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
David A. Arroyo appeals the summary denial of his posteonviction motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm the trial court’s denial as to grounds 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6. However, grounds 5, 7, 8, and 9 are facially sufficient and the trial court failed to attach any record support to its denial of those claims. Therefore, we reverse and remand for record attachments conclusively refuting the issues raised in grounds 5, 7, 8, and 9, or for an evidentiary hearing.
Arroyo states that he was fifteen years old at the time he pleaded guilty as an adult to second degree murder and was sentenced to thirty years in prison with a three-year mandatory minimum. Arroyo alleges that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because counsel failed to pursue a valid Mattered child” defense, based on a psychological evaluation, and coerced Arroyo into accepting the plea bargain by telling him if he did not do so, he would be eighty years old before he left prison. Arroyo’s additional allegations, that he would not have taken the plea bargain and would have proceeded to trial if he had been informed of the correct possible penalties and the viability of the battered child defense, render these claims facially sufficient. Therefore, the trial court erred by failing to include record attachments conclusively refuting these claims in its order summarily denying the motion.
Arroyo further alleges that the trial court failed to consider and inform Arroyo of his rights as a juvenile and failed to follow the proper procedures in accepting his negotiated plea agreement. Before a juvenile’s plea agreement may be accepted by the court, “the court must inform the juvenile of the rights provided by the Legislature under section 39.111 and insure that the juvenile voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waives those rights.” Sirmons v. State, 620 So. 2d 1249, 1252 (Fla.1993). The record before us does not show that the trial court met these obligations.
Arroyo also alleges that the trial court accepted the plea without a factual basis for the crime to which he pleaded. Because the order does not include any record attachments to refute this claim, this court cannot affirm the summary denial on this ground. Franklin v. State, 645 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).
The trial court’s order stating that the court finds a sufficient factual basis to rebut each of Arroyo’s claims is inadequate because no record support for those findings is attached. Upon remand, the court must attach the transcripts or other documents on which it relied to make its findings. If the record does not conclusively rebut each of Arroyo’s claims, the trial court must conduct an evidentiary hearing.
Appellant must seek review of any subsequent order of the trial court within thirty days of its rendition.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
BLUE, A.C.J., and FULMER and WHATLEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Davis v. State, 687 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…on this issue, the trial court entered an order finding that this allegation was without merit. Because the record conclusively refutes Davis’s claim, we affirm the denial of the motion for post-conviction relief on this ground. See Arroyo v. State, 673 So. 2d 919 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). In a separate order, the trial court noted that the remaining ground in his motion, i.e., that there was no factual basis to support the charges, was not addressed at the evidentiary hearing because the transcripts of the plea c…1 / 2
-
Sherwood v. State, 734 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…he prejudice being that he may have entered a plea to an offense for which he could not have been convicted. We reverse and remand for attachment of portions of the record refuting the claim, or for an evidentiary hearing. See e.g., Arroyo v. State, 673 So. 2d 919 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)(reversing denial of 3.850 motion where order did not include record [*1052] attachments to refute claim that trial court failed to a elicit factual basis for the crime to which defendant entered plea); Franklin v. State, 645 So. 2…
-
Jarred Galindo v. State, 150 So. 3d 269 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…2009) ■ (holding that the defendant’s claim that he would not have entered into a plea but for counsel’s misad-vice about the maximum possible penalties for his offenses stated a facially sufficient claim for postconviction relief); Arroyo v. State, 673 So. 2d 919, 920 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (holding that the defendant’s claim that he would not have entered into a plea if his trial counsel had correctly informed him about the possible penalties that he faced stated a facially sufficient claim for postconviction r…
Authorities Cited
- Sirmons v. State, 620 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 1993)
- Franklin v. State, 645 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)