CHARLES SALING, 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.
Charles Saling appealed the denial of his Rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief, challenging his armed robbery conviction and life sentence as a habitual offender. The court affirmed the denial of most claims but reversed and remanded on Saling's contention that he was not advised of the consequences of habitualization, specifically regarding loss of early release eligibility.
The court held that Saling's claim regarding inadequate advisement of habitualization consequences was cognizable in a Rule 3.850 motion and that he sufficiently alleged prejudice. The trial court erred in summarily denying this claim because the record showed he was not informed of consequences other than possible life imprisonment.
[1] A claim that a defendant was not advised of the consequences of habitualization, including the prohibition from qualifying for early release programs, is cognizable in a…
[2] A defendant sufficiently alleges prejudice in a motion for postconviction relief if they claim that, had they been informed of the consequences of habitualization, they w…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Appellant entered an open plea to armed robbery with a deadly weapon and was sentenced to life imprisonment as a habitual offender. In his motion, he alleged that his plea was involuntary because he was not informed that habitualization would prohibit him from qualifying for early release programs.”
Establishes the nature of Saling's claim and the factual basis for his postconviction relief motion.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSaling entered an open plea to armed robbery with a deadly weapon and was sentenced to life imprisonment as a habitual offender. He filed a Rule 3.850…
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 Involuntary Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
[*938] PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Charles Saling, challenges the order of the trial court summarily denying his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Appellant’s motion raises several grounds for relief. We affirm, without discussion, all but one of appellant’s claims, and reverse and remand for further proceedings on his claim that he was not advised of the consequences of habitualization as required by Ashley v. State, 614 So. 2d 486 (Fla.1993).
Appellant entered an open plea to armed robbery with a deadly weapon and was sentenced to life imprisonment as a habitual offender. In his motion, he alleged that his plea was involuntary because he was not informed that habitualization would prohibit him from qualifying for early release programs. This claim is cognizable in a rule 3.850 motion. See Watson v. State, 700 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). Furthermore, appellant sufficiently alleged prejudice because he claimed that, had he been informed he would lose his eligibility for early release programs if sentenced as a habitual offender, he would not have entered a plea, but would have proceeded to trial. See Newsome v. State, 704 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). The transcript of the plea hearing shows that appellant was not informed of any of the consequences of habitualization other than the fact that he could be sentenced to life imprisonment. On remand, if the trial court again summarily denies this claim, it shall attach those portions of the record which conclusively show that appellant was aware that he would not qualify for early release programs if he were to be sentenced as a habitual offender; otherwise, an evidentiary hearing will be necessary.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and BLUE and NORTHCUTT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Butler v. State, 764 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…a plea, the issue of whether a defendant was properly informed of the collateral consequences of habitualization was a postcon-viction issue. Therefore, Butler properly raised this issue in his motion for postcon-viction relief. See Saling v. State, 705 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). On remand, the circuit court shall reconsider this claim and either deny it by attaching a record sufficient to refute it, or hold an evidentiary hearing on the claim. Reversed and remanded. PARKER, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND and…
-
Parker v. State, 808 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…ater proportion of his sentence if sentenced as a habitual offender than if sentenced under the guidelines. Id. Consequently, Parker’s claim is facially sufficient and is not refuted by the attachments to the trial court order. See Saling v. State, 705 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). The trial court must reconsider the claim, and if it is unable to conclusively refute the claim with record attachments, it shall conduct an evidentiary hearing on this issue. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. D…
-
Terence R. Davis v. State, 716 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…sed on trial court’s failure to advise appellant of consequences of habitualization when accepting plea, though court told him he was eligible for habitualization and informed him of maximum habitual offender term for each offense); Saling v. State, 705 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (reversing in part summary denial of postconvietion motion alleging plea involuntary because defendant was not informed habitualization would prevent his participation in early release programs and defendant would not have entered…
Authorities Cited
- Ashley v. State, 614 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 1993)
- Newsome v. State, 704 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- Watson v. State, 700 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)