HORACE CHARLES THOMAS, 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.
A defendant's acceptance and violation of probation does not preclude them from seeking postconviction relief from their conviction based on an involuntary plea.
Horace Thomas pleaded no contest to burglary of a dwelling and accepted a probationary sentence, which he later violated. He filed a postconviction mo…
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 Probationary Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Horace Thomas filed a timely postconviction motion alleging that his plea of no contest to burglary of a dwelling was involuntary. The trial court denied the motion on the ground that he was es-topped from challenging his conviction after he had accepted the benefits of a probationary sentence and had violated the terms of probation.
The law is clear that a defendant cannot challenge the legality of a probationary term after he has violated the conditions of probation. See, e.g., Brown v. State, 659 So. 2d 1260, 1261 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). However, Thomas is not attacking his probationary sentence; he is challenging the legality of his conviction based on an allegedly involuntary plea. The acceptance and subsequent violation of probation does not prevent a defendant from seeking postcon-viction relief from his conviction. See Allman v. State, 642 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)(reversing the denial of a motion to dismiss the underlying charge, which was filed in probation revocation proceedings).
The State conceded below that if his claim was not procedurally barred, Thomas would be entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his allegations. Accordingly, we reverse the order summarily denying Thomas’ motion and remand for evidentiary hearing.
DELL, STONE and STEVENSON, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cousino v. State, 762 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…stance of counsel. He made this challenge only after he entered his nolo pleas, was sentenced to probationary terms, and subsequently violated that probation. We first find that he is entitled to make his post-conviction challenges. Thomas v. State, 745 So. 2d 468 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Second, we find his claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel resulting in his entry of the pleas, and of involuntary or coerced pleas, to be legally and factually sufficient. See generally Strickland v. Washington, 46…
Authorities Cited
- Brown v. State, 659 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Curt Allman v. State, 642 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)