ROBERT REED, 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.
Robert Reed appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule 3.850, claiming his trial counsel promised he would receive the same guidelines sentence as his codefendant. The court reverses because the trial court's attached record excerpts fail to conclusively refute this claim of counsel misrepresentation regarding sentencing.
The trial court's order of summary denial must be reversed because the attached record excerpts—the plea colloquy transcript and waiver of rights form—do not conclusively refute Reed's claim of counsel misrepresentation about the sentence he would receive. A claim that counsel promised a more lenient sentence than actually imposed could justify withdrawal of a guilty plea.
[1] A motion for postconviction relief may be granted if counsel misrepresented the length of a sentence, leading the defendant to enter a guilty plea.
[2] Attachments to an order denying postconviction relief must conclusively refute the defendant's claims to support summary denial.
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 attachments to the trial court's order of denial fail to refute his claim that his attorneys promised him that he would receive the same guidelines sentence that his codefendant had received, and that he would not have entered a guilty plea but for the promise.”
Establishes the central basis for reversal—the trial court failed to conclusively refute Reed's claims of counsel misrepresentation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceReed entered a guilty plea and was later sentenced to twenty years as a habitual offender. Reed immediately asked his counsel to withdraw the plea upo…
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 Florida Rules Of Criminal Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Robert Reed appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief, filed pursuant to rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. We reverse and remand because the attachments to the trial court’s order of denial fail to refute his claim that his attorneys promised him that he would receive the same guidelines sentence that his codefendant had received, and that he would not have entered a guilty plea but for the promise.
Neither of the attached record excerpts — a transcript of the plea colloquy and the waiver of rights form Appellant signed — indicated that Appellant was aware of the maximum possible sentence when he entered his plea. The latter indicates Appellant was not promised anything concerning his eligibility for early release, but does not state that no one made him any other promises concerning his sentence. The sentencing transcript reflects Appellant asked counsel to withdraw his plea as soon as the court announced it was sentencing him to twenty years as a habitual offender. Postconviction relief in the form of leave to withdraw a plea can be granted on the basis of counsel’s misrepresentation about the length of a sentence. See State v. Leroux, 689 So. 2d 235, 236 (Fla.1996). If true, a claim that counsel promised a more lenient sentence than the one actually received could justify withdrawal of the plea. See McLendon v. State, 502 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). The state’s showing that Appellant knew the state sought to habitualize him did not refute the claim.
Therefore, the order of summary denial is reversed and the cause is remanded for an evidentiary hearing or the attachment of portions of the record that conclusively refute Appellant’s claim.
STONE, C.J., and DELL and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bradley v. State, 111 So. 3d 203 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…850 because it was not sworn, and he did not allege that trial counsel was ineffective for advising him that the sentence would run concurrent to the Saint Lucie County sentence. See Brooks v. State, 91 So. 3d 212 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012); Reed v. State, 703 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Even if it had been sworn, the claim could not be considered under rule 3.850 because Defendant was not seeking to vacate his sentence or withdraw his plea; rather, he seemed to be more concerned with the DOC’s interpretation of…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Leroux, 689 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 1996)
- DeWayne R. McLENDON v. State, 502 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Willis v. Dicieco, 502 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)