PAUL RAYMOND PELOQUIN, 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.
Court reversed summary denial of motion to withdraw nolo contendere pleas where counsel allegedly represented defendant would receive downward departure and treatment program rather than prison.
A trial court errs in summarily denying a motion to withdraw a plea when the record does not conclusively refute the defendant's claim that counsel made representations about sentencing and the court failed to inquire whether such representations were made.
[1] A trial court must conduct an evidentiary hearing on a motion to withdraw a guilty or nolo contendere plea when the record does not conclusively refute the defendant's al…
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 intelligencePeloquin entered nolo contendere pleas in five cases. He was subsequently sentenced as a habitual felony offender to concurrent ten-year prison terms,…
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 Downward Departure Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
STEVENSON, J.
This is an appeal from the trial court’s summary denial of appellant’s Rule 3.170(1) motion to withdraw a number of nolo con-tendere pleas. We reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing.
Appellant asserts that his plea was rendered involuntary by counsel’s affirmative representation that his motion for downward departure would be granted and that he would be sentenced to “treatment” and a “suspended” prison term. After the entry of his pleas, appellant was sentenced as a habitual felony offender to concurrent ten-year prison terms for each of the five eases in which he was convicted. Upon a review of the record, we find that neither the plea forms nor the transcript of the plea colloquy conclusively refute Peloquin’s claim that his lawyer represented that he would be granted a downward departure and placed in a treatment program. In the absence of any evidence that the court specifically inquired of Peloquin whether his attorney made any representations or promises regarding the length and nature of the sentence he would receive, the trial court erred in summarily denying the motion to withdraw plea. See State v. Leroux, 689 So. 2d 235 (Fla.1996); Brana v. State, 830 So. 2d 942 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Johnson v. State, 757 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing on appellant’s claim that his lawyer represented that the trial court would grant his motion for downward departure and sentence appellant to a treatment program.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
POLEN and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Iaconetti v. State, 869 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…he understood that there were “no plea negotiations.” This question was insufficient to determine whether Iaconetti understood that the sentence was entirely in the hands of the court given the representations by her attorney. Cf. Peloquin v. State, 858 So. 2d 1213, 1214 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (holding that in the absence of any evidence that the court specifically inquired of the defendant whether his attorney had made any representations or promises concerning the length of the sentence, the plea colloquy was i…
-
Ragoobar v. State, 893 So. 2d 647 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…ture, and the defendant assured the court that he understood that. This discussion conclusively refutes the defendant’s claim that he relied upon defense counsel’s promise of a more lenient sentence. We distinguish this case from Peloquin v. State, 858 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). There, we held that the defendant was entitled to a hearing on his motion to withdraw where he asserted that his plea was rendered involuntary by his attorney’s affirmative representation that his motion for downward departure w…
-
Ross v. State, 869 So. 2d 770 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…led pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The trial court was without jurisdiction to rule on this motion because Ross’s direct appeal is still pending before this court, filed through counsel on October 2, 2003. See Cazeau v. State, 858 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Therefore, as we did in Cazeau, we vacate the January 9, 2004 order and direct the trial court to dismiss the motion without prejudice. Ross shall be allowed to refile, without the penalties affixed to successive motions as an…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Leroux, 689 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 1996)
- Johnson v. State, 757 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Brana v. State, 830 So. 2d 942 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)