GERARDO P. LOPEZ-VALENTE, 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 police reports attached to a summary denial of a post-conviction relief motion are insufficient to conclusively refute a double jeopardy claim if they constitute hearsay.
Appellant pleaded no contest to two counts of cocaine trafficking and was sentenced concurrently. He later sought post-conviction relief, alleging ine…
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 Plea Colloquy cases and more on FLexlaw
EVANDER, J.
Appellant challenges the summary denial of his motion and supplemental motion for post-conviction relief. These motions were filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm as to all the issues raised by appellant except for his double jeopardy claim.
Appellant was charged in two separate cases with trafficking in cocaine. The information in each case alleged the offense had occurred on March 30, 2005, in Volusia County, Florida. Appellant entered a no contest plea to both charges. He was sentenced to a fifteen-year term in prison in each case, to be served concurrently.
In his supplemental motion for post-conviction relief, appellant claims his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to assert a double jeopardy challenge because he was charged twice for the same crime. In summarily denying appellant’s supplemental motion, the trial court found the two cases involved separate quantities of cocaine seized at different locations and at different times. Copies of police reports supporting the trial court’s conclusion were attached to its order. The police reports attached to the trial court’s order were hearsay and were insufficient to conclusively refute appellant’s claim. See Burgess v. State, 831 So. 2d 137 (Fla.2002); Carpenter v. State, 884 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).
We recognize a negotiated plea can be a basis for waiver of a double jeopardy claim. See Novaton v. State, 634 So. 2d 607 (Fla.1994); Barfield v. State, 871 So. 2d 929 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). However, neither a plea agreement nor a transcript of the plea colloquy was attached to the trial court’s order. Accordingly, on remand, the trial court must either include attachments to its order conclusively refuting appellant’s double jeopardy claim, or hold an evidentiary hearing.
AFFIRMED, in part; REVERSED, in part; REMANDED.
PLEUS, C.J. and SAWAYA, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Palmer v. State, 240 So. 3d 824 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)…arrest and another occurring at the detention facility. However, arrest affidavits are hearsay and "insufficient to conclusively refute a claim of ineffective assistance for failing to assert a double jeopardy challenge." See Lopez-Valente v. State, 951 So. 2d 65, 66 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007).3 The State concedes error. Therefore, we reverse and remand for the trial court to include attachments to its order conclusively refuting Palmer's claims regarding double jeopardy or to hold an evidentiary hearing. In summa…
Authorities Cited
- Novaton v. State, 634 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 1994)
- Burgess v. State, 831 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 2002)
- Robaldo v. State, 884 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Barfield v. State, 871 So. 2d 929 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)