IRIC V. SPEARS, 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 claims.
The defendant pleaded nolo contendere to felony offenses and was sentenced to imprisonment and probation, with restitution ordered. He later filed a m…
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 Maximum Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
WHATLEY, Judge.
Iric V. Spears appeals the denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Spears pleaded nolo contendere to several felony offenses, and on April 22, 2004, the trial court sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment, followed by ten years’ probation. Additionally, Spears was ordered to pay restitution in the amounts of $136,327.64 to Community Bank of Northern Virginia and $8,529.91 to Citicorp Financial Services. In his motion for post-conviction relief, Spears claims his plea was involuntary because he entered it under the mistaken assumption that the maximum sentence he would receive would be 49.8 months’ imprisonment and restitution would not be imposed. Specifically, Spears asserts that he made this assumption based upon the assistant state attorney’s representation that the maximum penalty would be 49.8 months’ imprisonment and that the State would not seek restitution. Spears recited portions of the change of plea hearing transcript and portions of the signed plea form to support his claim.
The trial court denied Spears’s motion and concluded that the record conclusively refuted Spears’s allegations. However, the portions of the record that were attached to the order 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Rangel v. State, 937 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…t of Corrections.” See § 775.082(9) Fla. Stat. (2000). To attack his PRR adjudication on a 3.800(a) motion, the defendant had to allege that his 2000 offense was committed more than three years after his release from prison. See Macaluso v. State, 912 So. 2d 694, 695-96 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). The defendant has not made this allegation, thus the trial court was correct in denying his motion. See Sampson v. State, 832 So. 2d 251, 253 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (claims regarding insufficient proof of prior convictions w…
-
Stovall v. State, 963 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Macaluso v. State, 912 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). THOMPSON, ORFINGER and TORPY, JJ., concur.…
-
Hampton v. State, 941 So. 2d 1198 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…ify for sentencing as a habitual felony offender or as a prison releasee reoffender. Bover v. State, 797 So. 2d 1246, 1251 n. 5 (Fla.2001); Adlington v. State, 840 So. 2d 354 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 859 So. 2d 513 (Fla.2003); Macaluso v. State, 912 So. 2d 694, 695-96 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). KLEIN, TAYLOR and MAY, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jones v. State, 893 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)