EDWARD GOULD, 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.
Edward Gould appealed a postconviction relief order dismissing and denying portions of his Rule 3.850 motion. The court affirmed the dismissal and denial of most claims but reversed the partial denial of claim one regarding an allegedly involuntary plea based on scoresheet miscalculations, finding the record insufficient to support the trial court's mootness finding.
The claim was not moot based on the record before the appellate court because the record did not contain the trial court's ruling on the 3.800(a) motion or documentation that the scoresheet errors were actually corrected at resentencing. The case was remanded for further proceedings, and if the trial court again denies the claim on remand, it must attach record portions that conclusively refute Gould's claim.
[1] A postconviction court's finding that a claim is moot due to a prior resentencing must be supported by record evidence demonstrating that the alleged errors were correcte…
[2] Where the record on appeal does not contain evidence supporting a postconviction court's findings, those findings are not conclusive.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“the record on appeal does not support the postconviction court's finding that the scoresheet errors alleged in the rule 3.800(a) motion were corrected or that the November 2, 2001, resentencing resolved the alleged scoresheet errors, thereby making Gould's involuntary plea claim moot”
Establishes that the appellate court could not affirm the mootness ruling without documentary evidence in the record
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGould entered a no contest plea and claimed it was involuntary because the sentencing scoresheet contained calculation errors. He had previously filed…
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 Involuntary Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1252] CASANUEVA, Judge.
Edward Gould appeals an order that dismisses a portion of claim one, denies a portion of claim one, and denies the remainder of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm, without comment, the postconviction court’s partial dismissal of claim one and the denial of claims two and three and reverse the partial denial of claim one.
In claim one of his motion, Gould alleged he entered his no contest plea based upon an improperly calculated scoresheet and, therefore, his plea was involuntary. He further alleged that had he been aware of the miscalculations made on the score-sheet, he would not have pleaded no contest. In denying the claim, the postconviction court concluded the claim was moot because Gould previously filed a rule 3.800(a) motion raising the same score-sheet errors, the errors were corrected, and Gould was resentenced on November 2, 2001.
Upon review of the July 26, 2000, rule 3.800(a) motion attached to the postconviction court’s order, this court finds that the postconviction court properly concluded that Gould raised the same scoresheet errors in his rule 3.800(a) motion. The post-conviction court’s order indicates that Gould was resentenced in response to his rule 3.800(a) motion. However, the record on appeal does not contain the postconviction court’s ruling on the rule 3.800(a) motion or the new scoresheet used at the November 2, 2001, resentencing.
Therefore, the record on appeal does not support the postconviction court’s finding that the scoresheet errors alleged in the rule 3.800(a) motion were corrected or that the November 2, 2001, resentencing resolved the alleged scoresheet errors, thereby making Gould’s involuntary plea claim moot. Accordingly, the attachments to the postconviction court’s order do not support its findings. We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings. On remand, if the postconviction court again denies the claim, it shall attach those portions of the record that conclusively refute Gould’s claim. See McPherson v. State, 750 So. 2d 125 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).
Affirmed, in part, and reversed, in part, and remanded for further proceedings.
ALTENBERND and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.