VANTERPOOL RUDDER, 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.
Appellant challenged a summary denial of his 3.850 motion for postconviction relief based on five grounds. The court affirmed the summary denial of four grounds but reversed as to the fourth ground, which alleged trial counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him of potential double jeopardy violations with respect to three cocaine-related charges arising from a single episode.
The court affirmed the summary denial of four grounds for postconviction relief but reversed the denial of the fourth ground because the record and attachments did not conclusively show that appellant was entitled to no relief on his double jeopardy-based ineffective assistance claim.
[1] A motion for postconviction relief must be summarily denied if the movant is conclusively entitled to no relief.
[2] A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on failure to advise of double jeopardy violations is legally sufficient on its face if the charges arose from a single…
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“In his fourth ground, appellant claimed that his trial counsel had been ineffective in failing to advise him that his convictions for trafficking in cocaine, possession of cocaine and possession of cocaine while on the grounds of a county detention facility violated the double jeopardy clauses of the state and federal constitutions because all three charges arose out of a single episode and involved the same cocaine, thereby rendering his plea to those charges involuntary.”
Establishes the nature of the ineffective assistance claim based on double jeopardy violations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was convicted of trafficking in cocaine, possession of cocaine, and possession of cocaine while on the grounds of a county detention facilit…
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 Voluntariness Of Guilty Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant seeks review of a final order summarily denying his motion for postcon-viction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Appellant raised five grounds in his motion. We affirm the summary denial as to four of those grounds without discussion. However, because the order and attachments do not show conclusively that appellant is entitled to no relief as to one ground, we are constrained to reverse the order to that extent.
In his fourth ground, - appellant claimed that his trial counsel had been ineffective in failing to advise him that his convictions for trafficking in cocaine, possession of cocaine and possession of cocaine while on the grounds of a county detention facility violated the double jeopardy clauses of the state and federal constitutions because all three charges arose out of a single episode and involved the same cocaine, thereby rendering his plea to those charges involuntary. This claim was legally sufficient on its face. See Upshaw v. State, 840 So. 2d 1064 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). The documents attached to the order summarily denying relief do not show conclusively that appellant is entitled to no relief on this claim. Accordingly, we reverse as to this (fourth) claim only. Should the trial court on remand again decide to deny the claim summarily, it shall attach to its order those portions of the record that show conclusively that appellant is entitled to no relief; otherwise, it shall hold an evidentiary hearing. We affirm the summary denial of all other claims raised.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; and REMANDED, with directions.
ALLEN, WEBSTER, and BENTON, JJ., concur.