JOSEPH ALEXANDER JENKINS, 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.
Jenkins appealed the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief, raising multiple claims. The court reversed and remanded two claims alleging the trial court failed to follow statutory procedures for habitualization as required by Ashley v. State, namely failing to provide written notice and confirm Jenkins's awareness of the consequences of habitual offender sentencing.
The court reversed and remanded the denial of Jenkins's motion on the Ashley claims because they were facially sufficient and the trial court's order merely denied relief without attaching portions of the record to refute the allegations. On remand, if the allegations cannot be conclusively refuted by the record, an evidentiary hearing may be conducted, and if the allegations are determined to have merit, Jenkins must be allowed to withdraw his plea.
[1] A defendant must receive written notice of the intent to habitualize and be personally aware of the possibility and consequences of habitualization before a court accepts…
[2] A defendant's claim that they did not receive written notice of intent to habitualize is facially sufficient when supported by a prejudice allegation.
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“[T]hat in order for a defendant to be habitualized following a guilty or nolo plea, the following must take place prior to acceptance of the plea: 1) The defendant must be given written notice of intent to habitualize, and 2) the court must confirm that the defendant is personally aware of the possibility and reasonable consequences of habitualization.”
Establishes the two-part statutory requirement from Ashley v. State that must be satisfied before habitualization can occur following a guilty or nolo plea.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJenkins entered open pleas of nolo contendere to multiple criminal offenses in two separate cases on the same day and was sentenced as a habitual felo…
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 Withdrawal Of Guilty Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Joseph Alexander Jenkins appeals the summary denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 in which he asserted numerous grounds for relief. We reverse and remand only as to two of the claims raised. In these two claims, Jenkins alleges that the trial court failed to follow the procedures required for habitualization that the supreme court described in Ashley v. State, 614 So. 2d 486 (Fla.1993).
Jenkins entered open pleas of nolo conten-dere to multiple criminal offenses in two separate cases on the same day. The trial court sentenced him as a habitual felony offender in both cases. Jenkins states that he did not receive written notice of the intent to habitualize him in case number 93-14461, although he did receive the notice in the other case.
Jenkins further asserts that the trial court failed to ascertain that he was personally aware of the maximum habitual offender sentence he could receive and the consequences of habitualization in both cases. He makes the required prejudice allegation by asserting that if he had been given the information, he would not have entered the plea, but would have proceeded to trial. See Newsome v. State, 704 So. 2d 213, 214 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998).
In Ashley, the supreme court held:
[T]hat in order for a defendant to be habit-ualized following a guilty or nolo plea, the following must take place prior to acceptance of the plea: 1) The defendant must be given written notice of intent to habitu-alize, and 2) the court must confirm that the defendant is personally aware of the possibility and reasonable consequences of habitualization.
614 So. 2d at 490. Jenkins’ claims are facially sufficient.
Since the trial court’s order merely denies relief without any attachments to refute these allegations, we reverse and remand for further proceedings as to the Ashley claims. If the trial court again summarily denies the motion, it must attach those portions of the record that refute the allegations. If the allegations cannot be conclusively refuted by the record, an evidentiary hearing may be conducted. If Jenkins’ allegations are determined to have merit, he must be allowed to withdraw his plea and thereafter enter into a new plea arrangement or proceed to trial.
Reversed and remanded.
PATTERSON, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND and WHATLEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Ashley v. State, 614 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 1993)
- Newsome v. State, 704 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)