RANDY ROUNDTREE, 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.
Randy Roundtree appealed the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 postconviction motion challenging his armed robbery conviction and 30-year PRR sentence. The court affirmed dismissal of grounds one through three, five, and six, but reversed and remanded grounds four and seven, finding facially sufficient claims for newly discovered evidence and ineffective assistance of counsel.
The court held that grounds four and seven stated facially sufficient claims for relief. Roundtree's allegations of newly discovered evidence regarding his codefendant's coerced silence constituted a prima facie claim under applicable law. His claim of ineffective assistance regarding failure to advise of PRR enhancement consequences during plea negotiations was also facially sufficient under the Strickland standard as applied in Murphy v. State.
[1] A motion for postconviction relief is facially sufficient when it alleges newly discovered evidence that would have refuted the State's argument regarding the defendant's…
[2] Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 does not require the filing of supporting affidavits for a motion for postconviction relief; a brief statement of facts is suffic…
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“rule 3.850 does not require the filing of supporting affidavits; it only requires a brief statement of facts in support of the motion”
Establishes the procedural requirement for Rule 3.850 motions and explains why the trial court erred in dismissing for lack of affidavit
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRoundtree was convicted by jury of armed robbery and sentenced to 30 years as a Prison Releasee Reoffender (PRR). In ground four, he alleged his codef…
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 Plea Negotiations cases and more on FLexlaw
KELLY, Judge.
Randy Roundtree challenges the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm without comment as to grounds one, two, three, five, and six of the motion. Because Roundtree made facially sufficient claims for relief in grounds four and seven, we reverse and remand.
Roundtree was found guilty by a jury of armed robbery and sentenced to thirty years in prison as a Prison Releasee Reof-fender (PRR).
In ground four of his motion, Roundtree alleged that his codefendant had just recently admitted that he had not testified on Roundtree’s behalf because he had been coerced by the State. Roundtree alleged that his codefendant would have testified that Roundtree had no role in planning or committing the robbery and that Roundtree had no knowledge that a robbery would take place. Roundtree alleged that this testimony would have refuted the State’s argument that Roundtree acted as a lookout during the robbery. These allegations are sufficient to state a prima facie claim of newly discovered evidence. See McLin v. State, 827 So. 2d 948 (Fla.2002); Keen v. State, 855 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). It appears that the trial court denied Roundtree’s claim because he failed to attach an affidavit. However, rule 3.850 does not require the filing of supporting affidavits; it only requires a brief statement of facts in support of the motion. See Valle v. State, 705 So. 2d 1331 (Fla.1997); Smith v. State, 837 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing on this ground.
In ground seven of his motion, Roundtree alleged that before trial, the State offered a sentence of fifty-four months in prison in exchange for a nolo contendere plea. Roundtree alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective during the plea negotiation because she failed to advise Roundtree that he could face an enhanced sentence as-a PRR if he rejected the offer. Roundtree also alleged that he would have accepted the plea offer had he been properly advised of the possible penalties and that acceptance of the offer would have resulted in a lesser sentence of fifty-four months in prison with no PRR designation. This is a facially sufficient claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. See Murphy v. State, 869 So. 2d 1228 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). The trial court’s order did not refute this claim. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to reconsider the claim and either attach portions of the record that conclusively refute the claim or conduct an evidentiary hearing.
Reversed and remanded.
WHATLEY and SALCINES, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hunter v. State, 29 So. 3d 256 (Fla. 2008)…odefendant which stated the defendant was not present and was not involved in the shooting and based on the postconviction motion which alleged that defense counsel tried to obtain the code-fendant’s cooperation but was refused); Roundtree v. State, 884 So. 2d 322, 323 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (holding that the defendant’s allegations that his codefendant admitted that the defendant had no role in the robbery and that the codefendant had not testified on the defendant’s behalf because he had been coerced by the Sta…
-
Butler v. State, 946 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…n evi-dentiary hearing. See Hilbert v. State, 666 So. 2d 1059 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). Moreover, “rule 3.850 does not require the filing of supporting affidavits; it only requires a brief statement of facts in support of the motion.” Roundtree v. State, 884 So. 2d 322, 323 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (citing Valle v. State, 705 So. 2d 1331 (Fla.1997), and Smith v. State, 837 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)). Based on the limited record before us and taking the motion’s allegations and the affidavit as true, we conclude th…
-
Mann v. State, 21 So. 3d 894 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…have been invaluable to him. Although a motion is more persuasive if it is accompanied by an affidavit from such an overlooked witness, the law does not require a prisoner to support his sworn motion with additional evidence. See Roundtree v. State, 884 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). Thus, the records attached to this order do not refute Mr. Mann’s allegation. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Affirmed in part; reversed in part; and remanded. WALLACE a…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- McLIN v. State, 827 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 2002)
- Valle v. State, 705 So. 2d 1331 (Fla. 1997)
- Keen v. State, 855 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Kossow v. Snapp Indus., Inc., 837 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- Murphy v. State, 869 So. 2d 1228 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)