WILLIAM J. WALKER, 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.
Walker appealed the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 postconviction motion, claiming his trial attorney was ineffective for stipulating to restitution without his consent and contrary to the plea agreement. The court affirmed the denial of most claims but reversed and remanded the restitution claim because the record did not conclusively establish Walker was not entitled to relief.
As to the restitution claim, the court reversed and remanded because the record did not conclusively establish that Walker was not entitled to relief. The trial court's reliance on portions of the record was insufficient to summarily deny the claim without further proceedings.
[1] A motion for postconviction relief may be summarily denied only if the record conclusively establishes that the movant is entitled to no relief.
[2] A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on an attorney stipulating to restitution not discussed during plea negotiations and against the defendant's wishes may…
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“denial of a rule 3.850 motion challenging a restitution award made after a negotiated plea must be supported by attachments establishing that the payment of restitution was a part of the plea agreement”
Establishes the legal standard for reviewing summary denial of restitution claims in postconviction motions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWalker was convicted and his plea agreement did not include restitution. However, his trial attorney stipulated to payment of a significant restitutio…
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 Plea Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant seeks review of an order which summarily denied his motion, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, seeking postconviction relief.
We affirm, without discussion, the denial of relief as to all of the claims raised save one.
Appellant claimed that his trial attorney had been ineffective because he had stipulated to the payment of a significant sum as restitution when restitution was not called for by the plea agreement, the subject of restitution had never been discussed during the plea negotiations, and the attorney knew that appellant would not agree to pay any restitution.
The trial court denied this claim because it was of the opinion that portions of the record reflected that appellant had stipulated to restitution after conferring with his attorney. We have reviewed the portions of the record relied upon by the trial court, and we are unable to agree that they conclusively establish that appellant is entitled to no relief on this claim.
Accordingly, as to this claim only, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. See generally Fernandez v. State, 701 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (denial of a rule 3.850 motion challenging a restitution award made after a negotiated plea must be supported by attachments establishing that the payment of restitution was a part of the plea agreement). Should the trial court again conclude that the record conclusively establishes that appellant is entitled to no relief, it shall attach to its order those additional portions of the record which lead it to that conclusion. Otherwise, it shall hold an evidentiary hearing. In all other respects, the order is affirmed.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; and REMANDED, with directions.
JOANOS, ALLEN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.