JEAN R. LUMA, 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 record did not conclusively refute the defendant's claim that his plea was involuntary due to his attorney's advice.
Jean Luma appealed the denial of his motion to vacate his plea, alleging his attorney advised him that she would not represent him at trial unless he …
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 Motion To Vacate Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Jean Luma appeals the summary denial of his postconviction motion to vacate his plea. His motion included a claim that his plea was rendered involuntary by his retained attorney’s advice to him that if he did not take the state’s plea offer, she would not represent him at trial unless he paid her an additional fee. He says that he did not understand that he could get a court-appointed lawyer if he could not afford to pay his private counsel the additional fee, and that he believed that if he did not accept the plea offer he would be sent to prison that very day.
The state’s position is that those allegations are conclusively refuted by the written advice of rights form that Luma acknowledged he read with the assistance of an interpreter. That form advised him that he had a right to counsel and that an attorney would be appointed if he could not afford one.
In State v. Leroux, 689 So. 2d 285, 287 (Fla.1996), the court explained that in order to “conclusively refute” a claim that a plea was rendered involuntary by counsel’s conduct, the record must do more than just contain “some evidence contrary to defendant’s claim,” it must be “so inconsistent with the claim so as to ‘conclusively’ rebut it.” We do not think that the record excerpts in this case meet that standard.
The order is therefore reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on this allegation only. We find that the trial court properly denied relief on Luma’s other allegations.
STONE, KLEIN and SHAHOOD, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wilson v. State, 832 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…adequately, and so failed to. give advice about the state’s case against him that comported with minimum professional standards. Finally, the motion contains allegations that the plea was involuntary for reasons like those alleged in Luma v. State, 736 So. 2d 1280 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). [*884] Nothing was attached to the order denying the motion that would refute any of these claims. We therefore remand for such attachments, or for an evidentiary hearing on each claim. The order is otherwise affirmed. AFFIRME…