ANTHONY AHEDO, 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.
Anthony Ahedo appeals the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 post-conviction motion claiming the trial court failed to honor a plea agreement that state sentences should run concurrent with related federal and state prosecutions. The court reverses and remands, holding that the trial court must either provide record evidence refuting the claim or hold an evidentiary hearing.
The trial court improperly summarily denied the motion. Although the trial court cannot order federal authorities to allow concurrent sentences, it is not powerless to effectuate the plea agreement through alternatives such as vacating the state sentence, imposing a suspended sentence or time served, or allowing withdrawal of the plea. The matter must be remanded for the trial court to either attach record evidence refuting the claim or hold an evidentiary hearing.
[1] A trial court must hold an evidentiary hearing on a rule 3.850 motion alleging a mutual mistake in a plea bargain unless the defendant's allegations are conclusively refu…
[2] When a rule 3.850 motion is denied without an evidentiary hearing, the defendant's allegations must be deemed true unless refuted by the record.
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“Although it is true that the trial court cannot order the federal authorities to allow the defendant to serve his sentences concurrently with state sentences, that does not mean that the trial court is totally powerless to effectuate the terms of the defendant's plea agreement if, as the defendant alleges, there was an agreement.”
Establishes that while courts cannot control federal sentencing, they retain power to effectuate plea agreements through alternative remedies.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAhedo entered a plea agreement providing that his Florida sentences should run concurrent with sentences in pending state and federal prosecutions ari…
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 Vacating Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PALMER, J.
Anthony Ahedo (defendant) appeals the trial court’s summary denial of his rule 3.850 motion.1 We reverse. The defendant’s rule 3.850 motion alleged that a mutual mistake was made during the defendant’s plea bargain -proceedings. Specifically, the motion alleged that, pursuant to the terms of the defendant’s plea agreement, the trial court ordered that the defendant’s sentences should run concurrent with sentences entered in pending state and federal prosecutions arising from related matters; however, the defendant was subsequently sentenced in a related federal case to a term of 90 years imprisonment, without regard to said agreement, and was returned to Florida to serve his state sentence, after which he will be required to serve his federal sentence. The motion claimed that since the defendant is being required to serve more jail time than he had bargained for, his Florida sentence should be suspended or he should be re-sentenced to a term of time served.
Although it is true that the trial court cannot order the federal authorities to allow the defendant to serve his sentences concurrently with state sentences, that does not mean that the trial court is totally powerless to effectuate the terms of the defendant’s plea agreement if, as the defendant alleges, there was an agreement. In a similar situation the court in Davis v. State, 852 So. 2d 355 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) recognized that in order to effectuate the terms of the defendant’s plea agreement, the defendant’s 'state sentence could be vacated and a suspended sentence or a sentence of time served could be imposed or the defendant could be allowed to withdraw his plea.
The State, in its response to this appeal, while arguing against it on the merits, commendably concedes that the trial court has not attached documents from the record supporting the conclusion that the trial court complied with its obligations under the instant plea agreement and, accordingly, that this court must remand this matter to the trial court to either attach portions of the record conclusively refuting the defendant’s claim or hold an evidentiary hearing on the motion. See Arbelaez v. State, 775 So. 2d 909, 914 (Fla.2000)(holding that when a rule 3.850 motion is denied without an evidentiary hearing the defendant’s allegations must be deemed true, unless they are refuted by the attached record).
Accordingly, we reverse the instant rule 3.850 order and remand this matter to the trial court to either attach portions of the record conclusively refuting the defendant’s claim or hold an evidentiary hearing thereon.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
PETERSON and MONACO, JJ., concur. . Fla. R. Cr. P. 3.850.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Heath v. State, 271 So. 3d 1228 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)…ively showing that Heath’s motion is legally insufficient; and (ii) on the limited record3 before this Court, it is unclear whether Heath is entitled to any relief on his postconviction motion. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D); Ahedo v. State, 877 So. 2d 926, 927 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). For us to affirm the trial court’s summary denial of Heath’s motion, the record must conclusively demonstrate that Heath is not entitled to relief. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D). Because the record before us fai…
Authorities Cited
- Arbelaez v. State, 775 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 2000)
- Davis v. State, 852 So. 2d 355 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)