TYRONE RAGIN A/K/A MERRELL COPELAND, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Ragin appealed the trial court's denial of his motion for post-conviction relief based on alleged inadequate advice regarding sentencing consequences of his nolo plea. The appellate court affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief but vacated the contempt conviction imposed when Ragin testified untruthfully during the hearing, finding the contempt process violated Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.830.
The court affirmed the trial court's denial of post-conviction relief, finding no abuse of discretion in the trial judge's credibility determinations favoring the attorney's testimony over the defendant's. However, the court vacated the contempt judgment and sentence because the contempt process did not comply with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.830.
[1] A trial court's determination of witness credibility at an evidentiary hearing is entitled to deference on appeal.
[2] A defendant's untruthful testimony before a court may subject them to a contempt of court charge and sentence.
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“It is obvious that this process does not conform with the requirements of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.830.”
The court's determination that the contempt proceeding violated procedural requirements and therefore the contempt judgment must be vacated.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRagin filed a motion for post-conviction relief (3.850) claiming his counsel had misadvised him about the sentencing consequences of his nolo plea, pa…
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 Misadvice Of Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
After an evidentiary hearing at which the appellant testified, the trial court denied his motion for 3.850 relief based on alleged misadvice of counsel concerning the sentencing consequences of his nolo plea. Because the ruling was based upon the court’s view of the credibility respectively of the defendant and the attorney, we affirm this determination.1
Before he took the stand, the trial judge warned Ragin that if he testified untruthfully, he might be found guilty of and sentenced for contempt of court. True to that admonition, the record of the conclusion of the hearing shows the following:
Sir, I’m denying your motion in light of the fact that I do believe that you were advised that you may not qualify as to early release programs.
And, sir, I do at this time find that you have been untruthful to this Court. I would like to know why I should not hold you in contempt of Court.
THE DEFENDANT: Your Honor, at this time, like I said, Your Honor, I was not familiar with the law prior to going to prison.
THE COURT: Okay.
But that still does not excuse your misstatements. As such, sir, I do find you are in contempt of the Court and I’m going to sentence you to six months in Dade County Jail on each case.
It is obvious that this process does not conform with the requirements of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.830. Tejada v. State, 729 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Davis v. State, 575 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); see also D.V. v. State, 817 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), and cases cited; Rhoads v. State, 817 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Hence the judgment and sentence for contempt are vacated.2
Affirmed in part, vacated in part.
. The other grounds asserted for post-conviction relief were properly rejected without hearing. See Novaton v. State, 634 So. 2d 607 (Fla.1994); Resta v. State, 698 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997), review denied, 703 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 1997).
. Although the timely notice of appeal refers only to the denial of post-conviction relief, we consider the appellant’s claim of error in the contempt judgment as fairly included within the notice. See Fla.R.App.P. 9.040(d); Jones v. State, 423 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); See generally, Milar Galleries, Inc. v. Miller, 349 So. 2d 170 (Fla.1977); Ruga v. Suave Shoe Corp., 417 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)(en banc).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited (13 total)
- Novaton v. State, 634 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 1994)
- Robustiano Puga & Medmold, Inc. v. Suave Shoe Corp., 417 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Milar Galleries, Inc. v. Miller, 349 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 1977)
- Jones v. State, 423 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- D.V. v. State, 817 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Bayardo Alejandro Torres v. Torres, 575 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
- Davis v. State, 575 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
- Singletary v. Newgent, 698 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- Davella v. State, 817 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- Resta v. State, 698 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)