JORGE PEREZ, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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 Florida Third District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court's summary denial of a postconviction motion under Rule 3.800(a), where the defendant claimed a discrepancy between his written sentence and the trial court's oral pronouncement. The appellate court held that the trial court failed to attach sufficient record excerpts to support summary denial and remanded for the trial court to either provide the necessary documentation or explain why no sentencing transcript exists.
The appellate court reversed and remanded because the postconviction record failed to conclusively show that the appellant was entitled to no relief. On remand, if the trial court again summarily denies the motion, it must attach record excerpts or a sentencing transcript (sealed if necessary) conclusively showing the defendant is not entitled to relief, or deny the motion without prejudice.
[1] An appellate court must reverse a summary denial of a post-conviction motion unless the record conclusively shows the appellant is entitled to no relief.
[2] When a defendant claims a discrepancy between the written sentence and the oral pronouncement, the trial court must attach relevant record excerpts, such as a sentencing…
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“On appeal from a summary denial, this court must reverse unless the postconviction record, see Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(A), shows conclusively that the appellant is entitled to no relief.”
Establishes the standard of review for summary denials of postconviction motions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant-appellant Perez filed a postconviction motion claiming a discrepancy between his written sentence and the trial court's oral pronouncement. …
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 Summary Denial Of Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal of an order summarily denying a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Defendant-appellant Perez claims a discrepancy between his sentence and the oral pronouncement by the trial court. The trial court denied the motion finding that defendant entered into a written plea agreement for the sentence imposed. Neither the trial court nor the State, however, attached a copy of the sentencing transcript or the written plea agreement.
On appeal from a summary denial, this court must reverse unless the postcon-viction record, see Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(A), shows conclusively that the appellant is entitled to no relief. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D).
Because the record now before us fails to make the required showing, we reverse the order and remand for further proceedings. If the trial court again enters an order summarily denying the post-conviction motion, the court shall attach record excerpts conclusively showing that the appellant is not entitled to any relief.
We point to two special considerations. First, the State’s trial court response indicated that the defendant entered into a sealed plea agreement in this case. If the plea agreement is sealed and needs to remain sealed, then the plea agreement may be transmitted to this court under seal.
Second, the Florida Supreme Court has imposed some special rules where, as here, a defendant maintains that the written sentence deviates from the oral pronouncement. Williams v. State, 957 So.2d 600, 604 (Fla.2007); see Lopez v. State, 2 So.3d 1057, 1059 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009). Neither the State’s trial court response nor the trial court’s order addresses whether or not a sentencing transcript is in the court file. If it is, then the court may attach the sentencing transcript to its order. If sealed, it may be transmitted under seal. If no transcript is in the court file, then the trial court may deny this part of the defendant’s motion without prejudice to the filing of an amended motion attaching the sentencing transcript. Williams, 957 So.2d at 604.
For the stated reasons, we reverse the order now before us and remand for further proceedings consistent herewith.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 957 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 2007)
- Lopez v. State, 2 So. 3d 1057 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)