TIMOTHY A. PARKER, 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 a defendant must be informed of the reasonable consequences of habitualization, including ineligibility for early release programs, before pleading guilty.
Timothy Parker sought to withdraw his guilty pleas, alleging he was not informed that being classified as a habitual offender would make him ineligibl…
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 Withdrawal Of Guilty Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
FULMER, Judge.
Timothy Parker filed a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion in the trial court in which he alleged three different grounds to support his claim that he should be permitted to withdraw his guilty pleas to four counts of robbery. The trial court denied the motion. Two of Parker’s claims are not cognizable as rule 3.850 claims, and the trial court’s denial of these claims is affirmed without further comment. However, one of Parker’s claims is facially sufficient and must be addressed by the trial court on its merits.
Parker alleged that the court did not tell him that his classification as a habitual offender would render him ineligible for early release programs. Parker contended in his motion that had he been informed of this consequence, he would not have entered the plea.
In Ashley v. State, 614 So. 2d 486, 489 (Fla.1993), the court directed that defendants be informed of “the reasonable consequences of habitualization.” The court stated specifically that a defendant must be -informed that he will be required to serve a greater proportion of his sentence if sentenced as a habitual offender than if sentenced under the guidelines. Id.
Consequently, Parker’s claim is facially sufficient and is not refuted by the attachments to the trial court order. See Saling v. State, 705 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). The trial court must reconsider the claim, and if it is unable to conclusively refute the claim with record attachments, it shall conduct an evidentiary hearing on this issue.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
DAVIS and KELLY, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hampton v. State, 217 So. 3d 1096 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…islative abolition of basic gain time; and (2) found that ineligibility for gain time or early release through certain programs is a direct consequence of a plea. We also certify conflict with the decisions of the Second District in Parker v. State, 808 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), Butler v. State, 764 So. 2d 794, 795 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), Black v. State, 698 So. 2d 1370, 1371 [*1100] (Fla. 2d DCA 1997), and Watson v. State, 661 So. 2d 72, 72 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). We agree with the postconviction court that Ap…
-
Lerandros L. Smith v. State, 126 So. 3d 397 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…ost gain time or early release as a result of the defendant being sentenced as a habitual felony offender. Williams v. State, 2 So. 3d 1089, 1089-90 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009); Murphy v. State, 952 So. 2d 1214, 1215-16 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); Parker v. State, 808 So. 2d 264, 264 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Butler v. State, 764 So. 2d 794, 795 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Black v. State, 698 So. 2d 1370, 1371 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Watson v. State, 661 So. 2d 72, 72 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Affirmed. Conflict certified. DAMOORGIAN, C.J., GERB…
Authorities Cited
- Ashley v. State, 614 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 1993)
- Saling v. State, 705 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)