TIMOTHY ELLIS, 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.
Timothy Ellis appealed the summary denial of his post-conviction Rule 3.850 motion alleging that his defense attorney misrepresented the minimum guideline sentence in plea negotiations, and that he therefore did not receive the specific performance of his alleged plea bargain. The appellate court reversed and remanded, finding that the trial court's summary denial was improper because the State's exhibits did not conclusively refute Ellis's allegations.
The court reversed the summary denial because the State's exhibits attached to its response did not conclusively refute Ellis's allegations. On remand, the trial court must attach additional portions of the record to conclusively refute Ellis's allegations if possible, or hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the plea bargain was violated.
[1] A defendant may seek specific performance of a plea bargain when the defendant has performed their obligations and the State has not.
[2] A trial court must attach portions of the record that conclusively refute a defendant's allegations in a post-conviction relief motion, or hold an evidentiary hearing.
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“specific performance may be available when the defendant has performed and the State has not, citing Santobello v. New York”
Establishes that specific performance of a plea bargain is a possible remedy when the defendant has fulfilled his obligations but the State has not, distinguishing it from mere plea withdrawal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEllis entered into a plea bargain with the State whereby he agreed to cooperate and testify against a co-defendant in exchange for pleading to some ch…
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 Violation Of Plea Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Timothy Ellis (Defendant) appeals an order summarily denying his Rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief. We reverse and remand.
Defendant claimed that he entered into a plea bargain with the State, pursuant to which he cooperated with the State, offering testimony that helped the State obtain a conviction against his co-defendant. In return, he was to plead to some of the charges against him, the State was to nolle prosse the others, and he was to be sentenced at the bottom of the guidelines. He alleged that his defense attorney informed him that the State would not go below an agreement to eight years because eight years was the bottom of the guide lines. Thus, his plea provided for a negotiated sentence of eight years. He further alleged he did not have an opportunity to see the sentencing guidelines scoresheet prior to sentencing, but he later saw it and learned that the lowest permissible prison sentence actually was sixty-six months (five and a half years), not eight years.
Defendant sought specific performance: that is, resentencing to sixty-six months in accordance with the alleged agreement, relying on Spencer v. State, 623 So. 2d 1211 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (suggesting that withdrawal of plea may not be the only possible remedy for violation of plea bargain, but specific performance may be available when the defendant has performed and the State has not, citing Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 92 S.Ct. 495, 30 L.Ed.2d 427 (1971)). See also Buffa v. State, 641 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (reversing denial of rule 3.850 motion in which defendant contended probation officer recommended a sentence higher than the one the State had promised to recommend pursuant to the parties’ written plea agreement; remanding for resentencing, with instruction that the State make a sentencing recommendation in accordance with the plea agreement, as withdrawal of the plea would not remedy defendant’s loss of his bargain).
The trial court’s order of denial adopted the State’s response and exhibits, but those exhibits did not conclusively refute Defendant’s allegations. It is likely that no transcripts exist that can prove what was said off the record about Defendant’s entitlement to a sentence at the bottom of the guidelines, or about what lowest permissible sentence appeared on his score-sheet.
In response to this court’s order to show cause, the State concludes that the trial court must have failed to attach the portions of the record supporting its order and suggests remanding for it to do so; however, it also contends that the portions that were attached to its response below sufficed to do that. On remand, the trial court will have to attach additional portions of the record in order to conclusively refute Defendant’s allegations, if it can, or hold an evidentiary hearing.
Reversed And Remanded For Further Proceedings Consistent With This Opinion.
STEVENSON, C.J., GUNTHER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (U.S. 1971)
- Gonzalez Eng'g, Inc. v. Miami Pump & Supply Co., Inc., 641 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- Spencer v. State, 623 So. 2d 1211 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)