WADE JAMES ODUM, 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.
Odum sought to withdraw his negotiated guilty plea, alleging his attorney mistakenly advised him that an older Orange County sentence had expired, when in fact it would run consecutively with his new 15-year sentence. The trial court summarily denied his motion without addressing its merits or including referenced exhibits in the record, so the appellate court reversed and remanded for proper factual development.
The appellate court reversed the summary denial because the record was factually insufficient for meaningful review. The trial court must either conduct an evidentiary hearing or include in the record materials that conclusively rebut Odum's allegation that he would not have entered the plea but for his attorney's honest mistake.
[1] An appellate court must reverse an order denying postconviction relief when the record is factually insufficient to permit meaningful appellate review.
[2] A trial court's summary denial of a motion for postconviction relief is improper if the order does not address the merits of the allegations and fails to attach or includ…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Because the record before us is factually insufficient to permit meaningful appellate review, we are obliged to reverse.”
Establishes that summary denial without proper record support requires reversal on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOdum entered a negotiated plea to seven charges with a agreed 15-year sentence to run concurrent with Georgia sentences and consecutive to Tennessee s…
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 Negotiated Plea Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant seeks reversal of an order denying his motion for postconvietion relief, which had been filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Because the record before us is factually insufficient to permit meaningful appellate review, we are obliged to reverse.
Appellant’s motion alleged that he had entered a negotiated plea to seven different charges, and was to receive a 15-year prison sentence that was to run concurrent with sentences imposed for crimes committed in Georgia but consecutive to sentences arising out of charges brought in Tennessee. Upon entering prison, however, he alleged that he was informed that he still had a 10-year Florida sentence to serve, from a conviction in Orange County, and that without an order from the sentencing court that the new sentence was to be concurrent with the existing sentence, the Department of Corrections would consider the sentences to be imposed consecutively.
In his motion appellant alleged that his lawyer had advised him, based on a document received from the Department of Corrections, that the Orange County sentence had expired, and therefore was not included in the negotiated plea. Had he known that the Orange County sentence still had to be served, and would be consecutive to the 15-year sentence he had negotiated, appellant alleged, he would not have entered the plea, and thus wished to withdraw it.
The trial court summarily denied appellant’s motion in an order that did not address the merits of appellant’s contention and which referenced certain exhibits that were not attached to the order and were not otherwise in the record. There is nothing in the record, then, that supports the summary denial. Accordingly, we reverse. See e.g. Bland v. State, 563 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), Walker v. State, 432 So. 2d 727 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). On remand, the trial court is instructed to develop a factual record, either by conducting an evidentiary hearing or to include with the order record materials that conclusively rebut appellant’s allegation that but for his lawyer’s honest mistake, he would not have entered the plea. Nothing in this opinion should be construed to prevent the parties from agreeing that all Florida sentences may be served concurrently.
MINER, ALLEN and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jett v. State, 722 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)….1998). The Criminal Appeal Reform Act of 1996, chapter 96-248, [*213] section 1, at 953, Laws of Florida, as amended, does not, therefore, apply on the appeal Mr. Jett now brings from denial of his motion for collateral relief. See Larson v. State, 700 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). See also Sanders v. State, 698 So. 2d 377, 378 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (“But section 924.051 does not preclude an appellate challenge to an unpre-served sentencing error that constitutes fundamental error”). Citing Florida Rule of…
-
Howard v. State, 705 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…sly served on the possession counts. While it seems apparent from the face of the record that appellant did not receive the credit he was due under Tripp, he cannot raise this issue on appeal because it was not preserved below. See Larson v. State, 700 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Johnson v. State, 697 So. 2d 1245 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Middleton v. State, 689 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Chojnowski v. State, 705 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); sec. 924.051(3), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1996).1 In order to challen…
-
Martin v. State, 729 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…PER CURIAM. The trial court summarily denied Martin’s 3.850 motion, but failed to attach any record evidence that conclusively refutes his allegations that he was improperly denied jail time credit. See Odum v. State, 700 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Brown v. State, 689 So. 2d 1287 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand for attachment of record evidence [*1011] conclusively refuting his allegations or for an evidentiary hearing. ERV…
Authorities Cited
- Bland v. State, 563 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Kawasaki Motors Corp. v. Murray, 432 So. 2d 727 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)