RAYMOND YOUNGBLOOD, 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 failure to file a timely motion to withdraw a guilty plea does not preclude an involuntary plea claim from being raised in a motion for postconviction relief.
[1] A claim of involuntary plea may be raised in a motion for postconviction relief even if a motion to withdraw the plea was not filed within the time prescribed by rule.
[2] A defendant may be entitled to withdraw a guilty plea when the length of the prison term was misrepresented at sentencing, particularly if the misrepresentation concerned…
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 intelligenceYoungblood sought postconviction relief, arguing his guilty plea was involuntary due to misrepresentation about his prison sentence length. The postco…
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 Prison Credit cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Raymond Youngblood appeals the denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. He was sentenced on a violation of probation in June 2003 stemming from convictions for crimes that occurred in 1995. Although his argument is not well-crafted, Youngblood seeks to withdraw his guilty plea because the length of his prison term was misrepresented to him at sentencing. The postconviction court summarily denied the motion as untimely, finding that Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(Z) allows a defendant who pleaded guilty without expressly reserving the right to appeal a legally dispositive issue to file a motion to withdraw that plea within thirty days after rendition of the sentence. We reverse and remand.
The failure to file a timely rule 3.170(¿) motion does not prevent an involuntary plea claim from being raised in a rule 3.850 motion. See Murray v. State, 909 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). Moreover, the record attached to the postconviction court’s order suggests that Youngblood is entitled to relief because the State and defense counsel advised him that he would be transported to the Department of Corrections (DOC) only as a formality and would not have to actually serve a prison sentence due to his previously earned pris on credit. See Williamson v. State, 841 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (holding when DOC’s cancellation of credits conflicts with the intent of the plea agreement, the defendant is entitled to be sentenced in such a way that the intent of the negotiated plea is followed or to withdraw his plea).
We therefore reverse the postconviction court’s summary denial of Youngblood’s rule 3.850 motion as untimely and remand for an evidentiary hearing. We caution Youngblood that if he ultimately withdraws his plea and voids the plea agreement, the State will be released from the plea agreement as well. See Smith v. State, 907 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).
Reversed and remanded.
CASANUEVA, DAVIS, and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Marckman v. State, 997 So. 2d 1275 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…gnizable under rule 3.850. See Mungen v. State, 932 So. 2d 1229, 1230 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (holding that claim that plea was involuntary because the court failed to comply with rule 3.172(c) was cognizable in a rule 3.850 motion); Youngblood v. State, 930 So. 2d 852, 852 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (holding that an involuntary plea claim is cognizable in a rule 3.850 motion); Butler v. State, 764 So. 2d 794, 795 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (“absent a timely motion to withdraw a plea, the issue of whether a defendant was properly…
-
Smith v. State, 969 So. 2d 1144 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…he State concedes that the trial court erred. The failure to file a timely Rule 3.170(Z) motion does not prevent an involuntary plea claim from being raised in a motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Youngblood v. State, 930 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); see also Barnhill v. State, 828 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). On remand, the trial court is to treat Smith’s motion as a motion filed pursuant to Rule 3.850. REVERSED and REMANDED. PLEUS, TORPY and EVANDER, JJ., concur.…
-
Filipkowski v. State, 252 So. 3d 278 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)…upon the trial court's alleged failure to advise him of his maximum penalty in accordance with rule 3.172(c)(1). Marckman, 997 So. 2d at 1276 (first citing Mungen v. State, 932 So. 2d 1229, 1230 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); then citing Youngblood v. State, 930 So. 2d 852, 852 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); and then citing Butler v. State, 764 So. 2d 794, 795 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)). ---PAGE 6--- affect the range of punishment." Odegaard v. State, 137 So. 3d 505, 508 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (emphasis added). Thus, trial counsel's f…
Authorities Cited
- Williamson v. State, 841 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Murray v. State, 909 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- Smith v. State, 907 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)