FRANCIS BOWLING, 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.
Francis Bowling appeals the summary denial of his rule 3.850 postconviction relief motion, claiming the trial court improperly denied relief without attaching documents addressing his claim that boot camp eligibility was a condition of his plea agreement. The appellate court reverses and remands, finding the trial court failed to properly address the merits and instructing the trial court to determine timeliness of the motion and either attach refuting documents or hold an evidentiary hearing.
The trial court's order denying postconviction relief was improper because it failed to attach documents conclusively refuting defendant's claim. The appellate court reverses and remands for the trial court to determine whether the motion was timely filed and, if timely, to either attach appropriate record portions refuting the involuntary plea claim or conduct an evidentiary hearing.
[1] A trial court must attach documents that conclusively refute a defendant's claim that a promised program was an inherent part of a plea agreement when denying a motion fo…
[2] A rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief must be timely filed to be considered by the court.
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“the trial court's order denying defendant's motion for postconviction relief is improper because the trial court failed to attach documents conclusively refuting defendant's claim that he was promised the boot camp program as a condition of his plea”
Establishes the core deficiency in the trial court's order—lack of documentary support for its denial
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBowling was convicted pursuant to a plea agreement of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and aggravated domestic violence battery, and sentenced …
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 Youthful Offender Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
PALMER, J.
Francis Bowling (defendant) appeals the summary denial of his rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850. We reverse.
Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant was convicted of committing the offenses of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and aggravated domestic violence battery. He was sentenced to concurrent terms of five years imprisonment as a youthful offender, with the stipulation that he be permitted to enter the basic training boot camp program. For various reasons, defendant was found ineligible to participate in the boot camp program and, as a result, he sought rule 3.850 relief. Specifically, the defendant claimed that his judgments and sentences should be set aside because the boot camp program was an inherent part of his plea agreement.
The trial court entered an order denying the defendant’s claim for relief stating that the court had complied with the terms of the plea agreement by recommending that the defendant attend boot camp and therefore subsequent conditions which made defendant ineligible for boot camp did not constitute grounds for postconviction relief. No documents were attached to the trial court’s order. The State properly concedes that the trial court’s order denying defendant’s motion for postconviction relief is improper because the trial court failed to attach documents conclusively refuting defendant’s claim that he was promised the boot camp program as a condition of his plea.
However, the State maintains that the order should be affirmed on a procedural ground not addressed by the trial court: the untimely filing of defendant’s rule 3.850 motion. The instant record indicates that the defendant was adjudicated guilty and sentenced on October 12, 2000, and no direct appeal was taken therefrom. The defendant’s rule 3.850 motion was signed by defendant on June 22, 2003, and filed in the trial court on June 25, 2003, a date more than two years after the judgment and sentence became final. On this record it appears that the motion may not have been timely filed.
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order denying defendant’s claim for post-conviction relief and remand the case to the trial court to determine whether defendant’s motion was timely filed and, if so, then to either attach the appropriate portions of the record that conclusively refute defendant’s claim of involuntary plea or conduct an evidentiary hearing on the matter. REVERSED and REMANDED.
PETERSON and ORFINGER, JJ„ concur.