TIMOTHY HYSLOP, 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 trial court erred in summarily denying the defendant's motion for postconviction relief because the record did not conclusively refute his claim that his plea was involuntary due to counsel's promise regarding sentencing.
The defendant pleaded no contest to aggravated battery and alleged his plea was involuntary because counsel promised he would not receive a prison sen…
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
[*614] PER CURIAM.
Timothy Hyslop appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Hyslop pleaded no contest to aggravated battery and was sentenced to a guidelines sentence of seventy-one months’ prison followed by five years’ probation. He alleged that his plea was involuntary because he was told by counsel that he would not receive a prison sentence if the victim did not want him to receive such a sentence. He further alleged that he would not have pleaded but would have proceeded to trial had he known that he would be sentenced to prison despite the victim’s wishes.
The trial court denied the claim finding that it was conclusively refuted by the record. We cannot agree. Nothing in the plea colloquy addresses even generally whether Hyslop had been made any promises by his attorney regarding the sentence he was to receive or in any way refutes his claim that he was made such a promise. Moreover, the record reveals that the victim actually testified at Hyslop’s sentencing hearing that he wanted Hyslop to receive help and that he did not believe that such help was available in prison.
We therefore reverse and remand this claim for an evidentiary hearing. We affirm the summary denial of Hyslop’s other claim without comment.
.Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
BLUE, A.C.J., and GREEN, J., and CAMPBELL, MONTEREY, (Senior) Judge, concur.