RICK JAMES SMITH, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed denial of Rule 3.850 relief where defendant's plea was involuntary due to affirmative misadvice by counsel, prosecutor, and judge regarding the effective date of a statute affecting prison time credit.
A defendant's plea is involuntary when his attorney, the prosecutor, and the trial judge all affirmatively misadvise him about the effective date of a statute affecting prison time credit.
[1] A guilty plea may be rendered involuntary where the defendant, his counsel, the prosecutor, and the trial judge are all operating under a mutual misunderstanding regardin…
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 intelligenceRick James Smith entered a guilty plea based on advice from his attorney, the prosecutor, and the trial judge regarding credit for time served under C…
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 Motion For Relief Pursuant To Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.850 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Rick James Smith appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion for relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. One of the grounds argued, that his plea was involuntary because his attorney (and the state and trial judge) gave affirmative misadvice about the effective date of Chapter 89-531, Laws of Florida, as interpreted by Tripp v. State, 622 So. 2d 941 (Fla.1993), has merit, and we thus reverse.
The record before us does not refute appellant’s claim that he was affirmatively misled as to this issue. While the trial court did admonish Smith that if his attorney was mistaken as to the amount of credit for time served Smith would receive, it would not be a basis to withdraw his plea, it also appeared that defense counsel, the prosecutor and the judge were all operating on the mistaken belief that the change in the law which would disallow Smith’s prison credit came after Smith’s offense, not before. In fact, this was not the case. Further, Smith seeks the alternative remedies of either withdrawing his plea, or having the trial court modify his sentence to result in his anticipated sentence of only two years beyond the time he had originally served. See Williams v. Department of Corrections, 734 So. 2d 1132 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Jolly v. State, 392 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). Accordingly, we remand for the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing on this issue only. We affirm as to Smith’s remaining issues.
GUNTHER, POLEN and MAY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Tripp v. State, 622 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 1993)
- Jolly v. State, 392 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Williams v. The Dep't OF Corr., 734 So. 2d 1132 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)