JOHNNY RABEN III, 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.
The court held that the trial court erred in summarily denying the motion for postconviction relief because the attached documents did not conclusively refute the appellant's allegations.
Appellant alleged his plea was involuntary, based on counsel's incorrect advice that his sentence would be concurrent with other pending cases. The pl…
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
ALLEN, Judge.
The appellant challenges the summary denial of a motion for postconviction, relief .under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. In this motion the appellant alleged that he entered a plea in reliance on trial counsel’s advice that the sentence to be imposed would be made concurrent with sentences in other pending cases. However,- the sentence in the present ease was not givén such concurrent effect, and the appellant further alleged that he would not have entered the plea had he known that these sentences would be consecutive. The appellant argued that the plea was thus involuntary, and that he is entitled to “a new plea.”
The plea agreement and a transcript of the plea and sentencing hearing were attached to the order denying relief, but those documents do not conclusively refute the appellant’s allegations. The plea agreement merely contains a sentencing “recommendation,” and does not address all of the cases to which the appellant referred. The transcript indicates that the appellant was not expressly advised at that proceeding that the sentence might be made consecutive to any sentence imposed in the other cases.
As in-State v. Leroux, 689 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 1996), the appellant may be entitled to relief on the present claim unless his allegations are otherwise refuted. The appealed order is therefore reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings in accordance with rule 3.850.
WOLF and DÁVIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brana v. State, 830 So. 2d 942 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…m the sentences would be concurrent, appellant could have reasonably understood that as a statement of law, not a promise or a representation given to induce the plea. See id.; Carter v. State, 752 So. 2d 725, 725 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Raben v. State, 715 So. 2d 331, 331 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). We affirm as to the remaining issue raised as that was conclusively refuted by the record. We reverse and remand for either the attachment of additional portions of the record that conclusively show appellant is entitled…
-
Arius Julian Llanos v. State, 766 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…he same matters had been presented to the jury through the testimony of other witnesses. See Begley, 483 So. 2d at 74. Here, the doctor’s reference to the police report gave significant extra weight to the victim’s testimony. See Schroeder v. State, 715 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Lazarowicz v. State, 561 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). We, therefore, reverse and remand for further proceedings. KLEIN and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.…
-
McCORMICK v. State, 23 So. 3d 1259 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…he ground that it was involuntary because he was misadvised as to whether the East Pasco County sentences would be concurrent to previously imposed West Pasco County sentences. See Sawyers v. State, 566 So. 2d 942 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Raben v. State, 715 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). SILBERMAN, VILLANTI, and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Leroux, 689 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 1996)