CURTIS L. JONES, 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.
The court held that the trial court erred in denying the motion for postconviction relief without attaching record portions that conclusively refuted the defendant's claim.
The defendant pleaded guilty and was placed on probation, later violating it. He claimed the sentence imposed after the violation exceeded the sentenc…
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 Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
FULMER, Judge.
Curtis Jones appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
On December 18, 2001, Jones pleaded guilty to several felony offenses and was placed on five years’ probation. Jones later violated his probation and was sentenced to eight years in prison. In his motion for postconviction relief, Jones claims the sentence imposed at the violation of probation hearing exceeds the sentence previously agreed upon at the original plea hearing. Specifically, Jones alleges that during the original plea hearing the trial court, the State, and the defense had a discussion in which it was agreed that if Jones violated the terms of his probation, he would be sentenced to five years in prison if the violation did not involve the commission of a new crime. Jones recited portions of the original plea hearing transcript in support of his claim.
The trial court denied Jones’ motion. However, no portions of the original plea hearing transcript were attached to or referenced in the trial court’s order and the portions of the record that were attached to the order and relied upon by the trial court do not refute Jones’ allegations. Therefore, we reverse and remand for the trial court to either attach portions of the record that conclusively refute Jones’ claim or to hold an evidentiary hearing. See Reese v. State, 869 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).
Reversed and remanded with directions.
WHATLEY and CANADY, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Iric v. Spears, 912 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…er and relied upon by the court do not refute Spears’s claim. Therefore, we reverse and remand for the trial court to either attach portions of the record that conclusively refute Spears’s claim or to hold an evidentiary hearing. See Jones v. State, 893 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). Reversed and remanded. CASANUEVA and CANADY, JJ, Concur.…
-
Rayvon Jackson v. State, 908 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…the January 9, 2004 global plea hearing, which conclusively show that the defendant is not entitled to relief, or conduct other appropriate proceedings and then rule on the motion. Walker v. State, 432 So. 2d 727 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Jones v. State, 893 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Lowe v. State, 895 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Reversed.…
-
Borders v. State, 936 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…denied Mr. Borders’ motion. We must disagree with this result. Nothing in the rule 3.850 motion conclusively refutes Mr. Borders’ claim. Moreover, the postconviction court attached nothing to its order conclusively refuting it. See Jones v. State, 893 So. 2d 713, 713 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). Consequently, we reverse. On remand, the postconviction court should either attach portions of the record conclusively refuting Mr. Borders’ claim or conduct an evidentiary hearing. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and…
Authorities Cited
- Kimball E. Reese v. State, 869 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)