MARVIN ROWLAND, 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.
Marvin Rowland appeals the trial court's summary denial of his 3.850 motion for postconviction relief, claiming he was promised to serve his ten-year state sentences concurrently with his federal sentence in federal custody. The court reverses and remands because Rowland raised a facially sufficient claim and the trial court failed to properly support its denial with adequate record attachments.
Rowland raised a facially sufficient claim for postconviction relief under the rule that defendants are entitled to relief when a condition of a guilty plea is that the state sentence will be served in federal prison concurrently with a longer federal sentence and those terms are not met. The trial court's summary denial was improper because it failed to attach relevant record portions to support its findings, and a mere plea agreement without concurrent sentencing provisions does not conclusively refute claims that the trial court ordered concurrent sentences or that counsel made such promises.
[1] A defendant is entitled to post-conviction relief if a condition of a guilty plea, that the defendant will serve the agreed-upon state sentence in federal prison concurre…
[2] A trial court's summary denial of a motion for post-conviction relief is improper when the court fails to attach record attachments that conclusively refute the defendant…
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“Where a condition of a guilty plea is that the defendant will serve the agreed-upon state sentence in federal prison concurrently with a longer federal sentence, the defendant is entitled to post-conviction relief if the terms of the agreement are not met”
Establishes the legal standard for postconviction relief when concurrent sentencing terms of a plea are not honored, citing Glenn v. State
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRowland entered a guilty plea and was sentenced to ten years in Florida state prison. He also had a longer federal sentence. According to Rowland, his…
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 Enforcement cases and more on FLexlaw
WHATLEY, Judge.
Marvin Rowland appeals the trial court’s summary denial of his motion for postcon-viction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. In his motion, Rowland alleged that he was entitled to enforcement of his plea agreement to serve his ten-year state sentences in federal prison, concurrent with his longer federal sentence. In the alternative, Rowland claimed he was entitled to withdraw his guilty plea because he would not have pleaded under any other terms, thereby rendering his plea involuntary. Rowland also alleged both that counsel advised him that he would serve his state sentences and federal sentence in federal custody and that the trial court ordered his state sentences to run concurrent with his federal sentence.
The trial court denied Rowland’s motion because it found that the signed plea agreement made no mention of federal charges or that he would serve his Florida sentences in federal custody. The trial court, however, faded to include a copy of the plea agreement or any other record attachments to support its findings.
Rowland has raised a facially sufficient claim for postconviction relief. See Glenn v. State, 776 So. 2d 330, 331 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (holding “[w]here a condition of a guilty plea is that the defendant will serve the agreed-upon state sentence in federal prison concurrently with a longer federal sentence, the defendant is entitled to post-conviction relief if the terms of the agreement are not met”). We therefore reverse and remand this matter to the trial court for attachment of those portions of the record which conclusively refute Rowland’s claims or for an evidentiary hearing. We caution the trial court that the mere attachment of a plea agreement that does not contain provisions as to these issues may not conclusively refute Rowland’s allegations. See Perkins v. State, 696 So. 2d 1343 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (finding written plea agreement alone, with no promises of concurrent sentences, did not conclusively refute defendant’s claim that plea was involuntary when transcript showed trial court agreed to run state sentences concurrent with federal sentences).
Reversed and remanded.
BLUE, A.C.J., and GREEN, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Glenn v. State, 776 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Artie K. Perkins v. State, 696 So. 2d 1343 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)