CONNIE MELTON, 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 defendant's allegations of threats by the trial court regarding a harsher sentence if she proceeded to trial raised factual issues not conclusively rebutted by the record, requiring an evidentiary hearing.
[1] A motion to withdraw a guilty plea based on threats of harsher treatment if proceeding to trial raises factual issues requiring an evidentiary hearing when not conclusive…
[2] A trial court must hold an evidentiary hearing when a defendant's allegations of involuntariness of a plea raise factual questions not conclusively refuted by the existin…
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 intelligenceAppellant filed a motion alleging her plea was involuntary due to threats of harsher treatment if she went to trial. The trial court denied the motion…
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
PER CURIAM.
Appellant filed a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, alleging that her plea was involuntary because of threats of harsher treatment if she insisted on proceeding to trial. This court affirmed the denial of the motion without prejudice for appellant to refile a properly sworn motion in compliance with rule 3.850 within 60 days. See Melton v. State, 720 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). In appellant’s subsequent motion, she pointed to specific statements in the record that she claimed demonstrated that the trial court threatened her with a longer sentence and precluded her from calling certain witnesses on her behalf if she proceeded to trial. The court below summarily denied appellant’s motion without a hearing, finding that appellant had misconstrued the trial court’s statements and that the trial court had not threatened harsher treatment. The judge attached portions of the transcript reflecting the statements made to appellant by the court at the time of her plea.
We find that appellant’s allegations raise factual issues that are not conclusively rebutted by the record. Cf. Shell v. State, 501 So. 2d 1334, 1336 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (finding that the test for determining whether a defendant may withdraw his plea by reason of mistaken advice of counsel is whether defendant had established that he was prejudiced by an honest misunderstanding which contaminated the voluntariness of the plea). The trial judge should not have resolved factual questions adversely to appellant without first holding an evidentiary hearing. See e.g. Bray v. State, 742 So. 2d 804, 804 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (requiring an evidentiary hearing where there is an unresolved issue of fact).
Accordingly, we REVERSE and REMAND for the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing. The trial court may reconsider appointing counsel for such hearing pursuant to appellant’s request accompanying her original 3.850 motion. See e.g. Johnson v. State, 711 So. 2d 112, 115 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).
KAHN, BENTON, and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Edmond Boris Shell v. State, 501 So. 2d 1334 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Johnson v. State, 711 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- Melton v. State, 720 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- Bray v. State, 742 So. 2d 804 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)