NAOMI MORRISON, 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 by summarily denying the motion without addressing all claims and without attaching sufficient record evidence.
Morrison appealed the summary denial of her post-conviction motion to vacate her plea and correct an illegal sentence. The trial court denied the moti…
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 Motion To Vacate Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Naomi Morrison appeals the summary denial of her post-conviction motion to vacate her plea to violation of probation and correct an allegedly illegal sentence. The trial court denied Morrison’s motion without ordering a state response. The trial court’s order entirely failed to address Morrison’s claim of an illegal sentence.
Morrison raised three legally sufficient issues in her post-conviction motion: (1) the plea was induced by counsel’s incorrect advice regarding the sentence the court would impose if the state’s plea offer was refused, see Kemner v. State, 770 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); but see Bond v. State, 695 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); (2) the court failed to credit her with the incareerative portion of her probationary split sentence; see Henderson v. State, 720 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Cozza v. State, 756 So. 2d 272 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); (3) the sentence imposed exceeded the sentencing guidelines beyond the one cell upward increase permitted for violation of probation, Franklin v. State, 545 So. 2d 851 (Fla.1989).
The attachments to the trial court’s order do not conclusively refute Morrison’s claims. We reverse and remand for attachment of additional portions of the transcript and record that conclusively demonstrate that the appellant is entitled to no relief or for an evidentiary hearing.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
POLEN, C.J., STONE and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In the Interest of E.C. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs. & Guardian Ad Litem Program, 33 So. 3d 710 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…3)). Where the trial court’s finding that there is clear and convincing evidence to terminate parental rights is supported by competent, substantial evidence, the appellate court has no choice but to affirm. See D.S. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 842 So. 2d 1071, 1072 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). “Our standard of review is highly deferential. A finding that evidence is clear and convincing enjoys a presumption of correctness and will not be overturned on appeal unless clearly erroneous or lacking in eviden-tiary su…
-
T.O. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 21 So. 3d 173 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)….B. Sr. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 993 So. 2d 1159, 1160 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). Where the trial court’s finding is supported by competent, substantial evidence on the record, the appellate court must affirm. D.S. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 842 So. 2d 1071, 1072 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). First, we note that the trial court’s decision to terminate both parents’ rights to E.O. is supported by competent, substantial evidence that the father sexually abused E.O. and that the mother refused to end her relation…
-
T.M. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 971 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…where the trial court’s finding that there is ‘clear and convincing’ evidence to terminate parental rights is supported by competent substantial evidence [the appellate court has] no choice but to affirm.” D.S. v. Department of Children & Families, 842 So. 2d 1071, 1072 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); R.S. v. Department of Children & Families, 831 So. 2d 1275, 1277 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). As the court explained in In re Adoption of Baby E.A.W., 658 So. 2d 961 (Fla.1995): “[The appellate court’s] task on review is not to c…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Franklin v. State, 545 So. 2d 851 (Fla. 1989)
- Connor McDUFFIE v. Scotty's, Inc., 756 So. 2d 272 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
- Cozza v. State, 756 So. 2d 272 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
- Bond v. State, 695 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- Henderson v. State, 720 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Kemner v. State, 770 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)