ALFRED J. HUNT, 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.
Alfred Hunt appeals the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief seeking enforcement of a plea agreement that allegedly entitled him to credit for gain time that the Department of Corrections forfeited. The appellate court reverses, finding the trial court may have misconstrued Hunt's claims and that he has stated a colorable claim for plea agreement enforcement.
The court reverses and holds that Hunt has stated a colorable claim of entitlement to enforcement of his plea agreement. The trial court may have misconstrued his claim when summarily denying his earlier timely motions, and the appellate court should not apply the law-of-the-case doctrine to bar further relief when doing so would defeat the ends of justice.
[1] A motion to enforce a plea agreement may be considered timely even if previously denied, if the ends of justice would be defeated by applying the doctrine of law of the c…
[2] A defendant may be entitled to an evidentiary hearing or attachment of record portions refuting their claim when seeking enforcement of a plea agreement.
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“appellant has stated a colorable claim of entitlement to enforcement of his plea agreement”
The core holding that Hunt's claim for enforcing the plea agreement is sufficient to require relief
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHunt was convicted of attempted second-degree murder in 1993 and sentenced to 9.5 years in prison followed by 5 years of probation. While on probation…
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 To Enforce Plea Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Alfred Hunt, Jr. appeals a trial court order denying his motion for post conviction relief, properly treated by the trial court as if filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We reverse and remand for either an evidentiary hearing or attachment of portions of the record.
Appellant was convicted of attempted second degree murder with a weapon in 1993 and was sentenced to a split sentence of 9.5 years in prison, followed by 5 years of probation. While on probation, he was charged with grand theft of a motor vehicle and grand theft in a 1999 case. He was also charged with violation of probation. He pleaded guilty to the violation of probation and theft offenses. His plea agreement expressly provided that he would be sentenced for the VOP to 13 years in prison, but would receive credit of 9.5 years and 13 days of gain time with the DOC, and credit for time served.
He filed two prior motions to enforce plea agreement, which were summarily denied.
On appeal, this court affirmed the trial court orders denying relief in Hunt v. State, 775 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (affirming without prejudice to appellant’s right to pursue administrative remedies with DOC), and Hunt v. State, 798 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (affirming the denial of relief which followed the exhaustion of administrative remedies, without prejudice to appellant’s right to seek mandamus relief against DOC). In this third motion to enforce plea agreement, appellant maintains that his plea agreement has been thwarted by the Department of Corrections’ forfeiture of his gain time credit. He seeks resentencing to give full effect to the terms of the plea agreement or, alternatively, to allow him to withdraw his guilty plea.
The trial court denied this latest motion as untimely under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
However, we have reviewed appellant’s original motion to enforce plea agreement filed in May 2000, and even his second motion to enforce plea agreement filed in March 2001, both of which were timely for consideration under rule 3.850, and we now believe that the trial court may have misconstrued his claim when it summarily denied the motions. We also believe that we misconstrued appellant’s claim when we affirmed without prejudice to his pursuit of administrative recourse and mandamus.
Thus, we will not apply the doctrine of “law of the case” here to bar further relief, when to do so would defeat the ends of justice. See State v. McBride, 848 So. 2d 287 (Fla.2003); Strazzulla v. Hendrick, 177 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1965). Instead, we now hold that appellant has stated a colorable claim of entitlement to enforcement of his plea agreement. See Garvin v. State, 884 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); State v. Jackson, 842 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Williamson v. State, 841 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Dellahoy v. State, 816 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).
We therefore reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing or attachment of portions of the trial court records refuting appellant’s claim of entitlement to enforcement of his plea agreement.
GUNTHER, POLEN and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Silverstein v. State, 985 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…er of law, resulting in a manifest injustice. Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 118 S.Ct. 1604, 140 L.Ed.2d 828 (1998); State v. McBride, 848 So. 2d 287, 291-92 (Fla.2003); Ross v. State, 901 So. 2d 252, 254 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Hunt v. State, 922 So. 2d 452, 453 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Adams v. State, 957 So. 2d 1183, 1186-87 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). Reversed and remanded. SHAHOOD, C.J., KLEIN and MAY, JJ., concur. . This is the third time appellant has raised this issue in post-conviction motions. T…
-
Anton Bernard Bussey v. State, 929 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…Stat. (2003). Bussey’s position is that the DOC’s actions thwarted the intent of the negotiated plea. Having reviewed the record provided, which includes a copy of the plea colloquy, we find that Bussey has stated a colorable claim. Hunt v. State, 922 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); State v. Jackson, 842 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Della-hoy v. State, 816 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Williams v. Department of Corrections, 734 So. 2d 1132 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). We therefore reverse and remand for an evi…
-
Martinez v. State, 935 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…839 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Assuming the trial court was technically correct on the issue of successiveness, we think the case falls within the manifest injustice exception outlined in State v. McBride, 848 So. 2d 287 (Fla.2003). See also Hunt v. State, 922 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Morrison v. State, 932 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). The defendant’s claim of affirmative mis-advice appears to be documented on the face of the transcript. The defendant’s claim is not otherwise explained or refuted in the lim…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Antoine L. McBRIDE, 848 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 2003)
- Strazzulla v. Hendrick, 177 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1965)
- Dellahoy v. State, 816 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- State v. Nashawn P. Jackson, 842 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
- Williamson v. State, 841 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Gaffney v. State, 775 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
- Hunt v. State, 798 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Garvin v. State, 884 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)