GERALD KLEPAREK, 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 three ineffective assistance of counsel claims based on alleged affirmative misadvice regarding sentencing guidelines, credit, and sentence length, requiring evidentiary hearing or record attachments.
A trial court errs in summarily denying ineffective assistance of counsel claims alleging affirmative misadvice about sentencing guidelines, credit, and sentence length without record attachments or an evidentiary hearing.
[1] A trial court must either attach portions of the record refuting claims of affirmative misadvice regarding sentencing or conduct an evidentiary hearing rather than summar…
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 intelligenceKleparek appealed a trial court order denying his motion for post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, raising twelve cla…
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 Guideline Sentencing Range cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Gerald Kleparek appeals a trial court order denying his motion for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, raising twelve claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. We reverse and remand the summary denial of claims five, eight, and nine, but affirm without discussion the remaining claims. Claims five, eight, and nine alleged that Kleparek entered his admission to allegations of violation of probation based on certain affirmative misadvice of his counsel, as to the sentencing guidelines range, the credit to which he would be entitled upon sentencing, and the length of sentence which would be imposed. The trial court erred in summarily denying these claims without record attachments refuting them, or an evidentiary hearing. See State v. Leroux, 689 So. 2d 235 (Fla.1996); Bedwell v. State, 878 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Baker v. State, 879 So. 2d 663 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Fisher v. State, 824 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002).
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order summarily denying these claims of affirmative misadvice and remand for attachment of portions of the record refuting them, or an evidentiary hearing.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART.
FARMER, C.J., STONE and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Leroux, 689 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 1996)
- Baker v. State, 879 So. 2d 663 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- Williams v. State, 824 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- Fisher v. State, 824 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)
- Bedwell v. State, 878 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)