THEARON SAMPSON, 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.
Appellate court reversed trial court's dismissal of postconviction relief motion on habitualization claim where defendant alleged involuntary plea due to lack of notice of consequences, holding that a claim filed in response to appellate mandate is not successive or time-barred.
A postconviction relief claim filed in compliance with appellate mandate directions is not successive or time-barred and must be considered on the merits.
[1] A postconviction relief claim filed pursuant to appellate mandate is not barred as successive or time-barred when filed in compliance with directions to cure facial insuf…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSampson pleaded guilty with understanding he would be sentenced as a habitual offender. He filed an initial 3.850 motion alleging his plea was involun…
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 Time-Barred Claims cases and more on FLexlaw
WHATLEY, Judge.
Thearon Sampson challenges the trial court’s order summarily denying his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Sampson raised two grounds in his motion. We affirm, without comment, the denial of one of the grounds, but we reverse and remand for further proceedings on the other ground.
Sampson pleaded with the understanding that he would be sentenced as a habitual offender. He later timely filed a 3.850 motion in which he alleged that his plea was involuntary because he was not informed of the consequences of habituali-zation. Because Sampson’s claim was facially insufficient under Newsome v. State, 704 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), this court affirmed the denial of the claim “without prejudice to Sampson’s right to file a facially sufficient rule 3.850 motion.” Sampson filed a second rule 3.850 motion, which included this claim. This time, in compliance with Newsome, Sampson alleged that he would not have pleaded if he had been aware of the reasonable consequences of habitualization. The trial court denied this claim, finding that it was both successive and time barred. However, Sampson filed this ground of his motion in response to our mandate. We therefore reverse the trial court’s denial of the claim and remand to the trial court with directions to consider the claim.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
NORTHCUTT and STRINGER,-JJ., Concur.